On 2/21/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/21/07, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I submitted some patches the other day that got things working on
> > > dash for me.
> >
> > That was this post, right (the one that started this thread)?
> >
> > http://linuxfromsc
On 2/21/07, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I submitted some patches the other day that got things working on
> > dash for me.
>
> That was this post, right (the one that started this thread)?
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-February/058936.html
>
> Are those s
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>
> That's part of what DJ's contrib/ LSB scripts help with. Instead of
> printing "starting X...", then later printing either "OK" or "FAILED",
> the LSB interface basically forces you to build the whole line in a
> string, and then echo it all at once. This helps parallel
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> The POSIX compliant stuff should go right into trunk.
Agreed. There's no point in forcing the user to use bash for /bin/sh,
in my opinion, unless we really need it for something. And I don't
think we do.
> I submitted some patches the other day that got things working on
Joe Ciccone wrote:
> I'm all for parallelizing the boot scripts. The only thing I'm having
> a hard time getting my head around is updating the screen with the
> status.
That's part of what DJ's contrib/ LSB scripts help with. Instead of
printing "starting X...", then later printing either "OK" o
On Wed, Feb 21, at 07:45 Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> Maybe. I'd rather have topic branches, though. Cause what would happen
> if I had an upstart experiment going in this branch and then someone
> came along and dumped a no-libc experiment in there? :-)
>
I like to call them development cycles.
We h
On 2/21/07, Ag. Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Parallelizing the bootscripts? -
I think that would be interesting and others have shown interest as
well. It would seem to be a pretty non-invasive change from the
current bootscripts.
> Using dash instead of bash? -
This was never rea
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> So,Dan,I applaud your efforts and anyone else that cares and contributes with
> ideas/patches
> about speeding the booting process,whatever that means -
> Parallelizing the bootscripts? -
> Using dash instead of bash? -
> Using an alternative init system? Upstart?
If
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:28:49PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> The memory space is generally not significant either because only one
>> copy of the code is in memory at any time. The difference would be data
>> space.
>>
> /me admits to hoping someone would try this - there w
On Tue, Feb 20, at 01:55 Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> The overhead is the same reason why people are adamant about coding in
> C after all these years despite the availability of more powerful and
> intuitive languages.
>
Hmm...I don't know.As someone said/wrote today...with the current computer
sp
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Let's analyze it a different way. It takes over twice as long to
> initialize and close a bash shell than a dash shell. Why do that when
> you don't have to? It's a simple optimization.
We had an old saying in the military: Measure with a micrometer, mark it
with a grease p
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:28:49PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> The memory space is generally not significant either because only one
> copy of the code is in memory at any time. The difference would be data
> space.
>
/me admits to hoping someone would try this - there was an article on
lwn r
On 2/20/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >
> > $ time { for (( i = 0; i < 20; i++ )); do /bin/bash -c ":"; done; }
> >
> > real0m0.034s
> > user0m0.014s
> > sys 0m0.020s
> > $ time { for (( i = 0; i < 20; i++ )); do /bin/dash -c ":"; done; }
> >
> > re
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/20/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dan's OP was 'use dash to speed up booting' (over-compressed
>> over-simplification). I said you'd do better by parallelising the
>> service start ups. Nothing here that says it's at all worth while to do
>> either real
On 2/20/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dan's OP was 'use dash to speed up booting' (over-compressed
> over-simplification). I said you'd do better by parallelising the
> service start ups. Nothing here that says it's at all worth while to do
> either really. It's an intellectual
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> (However, the biggest delay on my machine is udev, and we can't
> parallelize that away. The devices that udevd creates are needed for
> both checkfs and mountfs, and mountfs is probably required for most
> other scripts. But whatever.)
Me too. I've considered a MAKEDEV
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> On 2/20/07, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
On the topic of parallelizing the bootscripts, what do people think
about doing this? DJ has added some easily-parallelizable scripts to
the contrib/ directory in
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 12:46:04PM -0500, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> On the topic of parallelizing the bootscripts, what do people think
> about doing this? DJ has added some easily-parallelizable scripts to
> the contrib/ directory in the bootscripts repo (basically, by making
> them LSB compliant
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>
> I guess I still don't understand the need for this. I just did a test
> on my laptop and it took 18 seconds from the time I pushed enter from
> grub to a login prompt. This included udev, dbus, hal, sshd, nfsd, but
> not X, ntp, or bringing up my wifi card.
>
>
>
14 is
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>>> On the topic of parallelizing the bootscripts, what do people think
>>> about doing this? DJ has added some easily-parallelizable scripts to
>>> the contrib/ directory in the bootscripts repo (bas
On 2/20/07, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> >
> > On the topic of parallelizing the bootscripts, what do people think
> > about doing this? DJ has added some easily-parallelizable scripts to
> > the contrib/ directory in the bootscripts repo (basically, by making
>
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> On the topic of parallelizing the bootscripts, what do people think
> about doing this? DJ has added some easily-parallelizable scripts to
> the contrib/ directory in the bootscripts repo (basically, by making
> them LSB compliant, you make them easy to run in parallel).
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 12:45:38PM +, TheOldFellow wrote:
> On the point of speeding up bootscripts, you'll have far more luck by
> parallelising your service start ups, then lightening the scripter.
Yep, that's right; most of the time now is spent waiting for various
services to actually star
23 matches
Mail list logo
