Helge Hafting wrote:
No problem with the remote server, it does not depend on the local boot process.
The mail program connects directly to the remote server, all you need is the
network and it comes up so fast, it will come up way before X in a parallel
boot.
Depends on the implementation and wha
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:56:25AM -0500, Jim Crilly wrote:
> Helge Hafting wrote:
> >
> >
> >Well, this will depend on your email server (pop? imap? other?)
> >being up. Is it local on your machine, or external? Either way,
> >being able to launch an email client (or some "new mail" notification
Helge Hafting wrote:
Well, this will depend on your email server (pop? imap? other?)
being up. Is it local on your machine, or external? Either way,
being able to launch an email client (or some "new mail" notification
app) shouldn't be a problem. It will simply not notice new mail until
the ma
Wouldn't it be sufficient to have an applet in your UI (or dialog,
depending on your preference), which communicates with init and displays
the final initialization steps? Don't check your email until it says it has
started the services for email.
So now instead of watching the boot messages or bo
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:37:09PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:17:25PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> This is debatable. Windows does something like this. It really annoys
> me that I will get a windows desktop very quickly after logging in
> but that I can't do an
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:17:25PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> > from user space to presenting a login prompt that's way too long. My
> > distro (Debian) runs all the init scripts one at a time, and GDM is the
> > last thing that gets run. There
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:17:25PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> from user space to presenting a login prompt that's way too long. My
> distro (Debian) runs all the init scripts one at a time, and GDM is the
> last thing that gets run. There is just no reason for this. We should
> start X and init
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:46:27PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:36:27AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Do one thing, and do it well.
> > >
> > > udev is for naming devices, not loading modules.
> >
> > Well currently udev is doing a lot more: serializing, waiting for sy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>>This would be a win (especially if the numbers are tweked to tune this)
>>with a relatively small effort.
>>However for real dependencies and parallelism you want the info similar
>>to creat a Make
Diego Calleja wrote:
Of course there're lots of problems, like what happens
if you change a file which was being used by a suspended process,
That one is easy. Store a checksum of the file in use when you go to
sleep If on wakeup the checksum is different, pop up a window that says
"the file *
El Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:46:56 -0500,
Adam Goode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Mac OS X has a similar thing, with a pretty simple description of how
> they do it:
>
> http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1150.html#HotFile
Also all those things are part of darwin i think (or IOW, we can look
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:56:14 CST, Linas Vepstas said:
> Now I like this idea. It need not have anything to do with startup,
> or with any particular program or distro whatsoever. Rather, one
> would have a daemon keeping track of disk i/o patterns, and constantly
> trying to figure out if there
El Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:51:06 -0500,
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Of course resuming from suspend will always be faster than booting but
> for the forseeable future we will have to reboot from time to time. And
> XP's boot time currently is way, way better than ours. FWIW, OSX stil
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:51:06 EST, Lee Revell said:
> I wonder if XP's solution is patented.
If it is, IBM's OS/360 and OS/VS1 and MVS had prior art way back in the 70's.
There were *plenty* of products that would look at the system call usage and
spit out an ordered load list for SYS1.LINKLIB and
Mac OS X has a similar thing, with a pretty simple description of how
they do it:
http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1150.html#HotFile
Adam
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:56 -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 12:43:29AM +0100, Diego Calleja was heard to remark:
> >
> > A
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 10:15, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> You can boot a SUSE 9.2 with parallel init scripts (default AFAIR),
> sequential init scripts and with a Makefile based solution. "Normal"
> (not Makefile based) parallel booting is possible much longer on SUSE,
> at least since 9.0 IIRC.
> And
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 12:43:29AM +0100, Diego Calleja was heard to remark:
>
> Also, it analyzes all those io "logs" and defragments
I dislike hearing/reading about what XP does, since its probably patented,
and I don't want that shadow hanging over Linux.
I assume that the following simple i
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 00:43 +0100, Diego Calleja wrote:
> There's stuff that it could be done in the kernel to help improving those
> numbers,
> IMHO.
>
> xp logs all the io done the first two minutes after booting. The next time it
> boots
> it tries to read all those files at once so the progr
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 01:15 -0500, Jim Crilly wrote:
> Another issue would be dual-booting, which a lot of people still do for some
> strange reason.
Um, to reverse engineer Windows drivers?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message t
Lee Revell wrote:
> That init scripts with no interdependencies are run sequentially rather
> than in parallel.
>
> There was an article from IBM a while back with a neat hack that used a
> parallel make to fire off groups of init scripts in parallel. I would
> expect more interest in this from
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:20 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> >On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:55 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
[...]
> >These are not dependencies but "only" the sequence of startup (and it is
> >not only Debian but also Fedora/RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and probably all
Helge Hafting wrote:
Now that is a really good idea. Init could simply run "make -j init2" to
enter runlevel 2. A suitable makefile would list all dependencies, and
of course the targets needed for "init2", "init3" and so on.
It might not be that much work either. Parallel make exists already,
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:55 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
[...]
The init-script dependencies are specifies already - at least on debian.
These are not dependencies but "only" the sequence of startup (and it is
not only Debian but also Fedora/RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:55 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
[...]
> The init-script dependencies are specifies already - at least on debian.
These are not dependencies but "only" the sequence of startup (and it is
not only Debian but also Fedora/RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and probably all
except Gentoo).
Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 20:17, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 16:16 -0800, Tim Bird wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
But, I was referring more to things like GDM not being started
until all
the other init scripts are done. Why not start it first, and let the
network initialize wh
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:32:22 +0100, Gábor Lénárt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:45:39PM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > >last thing that gets run. There is just no reason for this. We should
> > >start X and initialize the display and get the login prompt up there
> > >ASA
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:45:20 -0500, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 15:21 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Lee> I don't see why so much effort goes into improving boot time
> > Lee> on the kernel side when the most obvious user space problem
> > Lee> is igno
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:45:39PM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> >last thing that gets run. There is just no reason for this. We should
> >start X and initialize the display and get the login prompt up there
> >ASAP, and let the system acquire the DHCP lease and start sendmail and
> >apache and ge
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 06:39:37AM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 09:30:54AM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>If it is not possible to use klibc together with a non-Linux
> >>system (e.g. FreeBSD or Mach), then I would suggest to make
> >>klibc an op
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 17:15, Jim Crilly wrote:
> Nigel Cunningham said the following:
> > You warmed my heart until...
>
> Good to know someone reads my email =)
>
> > Why not? :> I guess you mean to the problem of slow booting in the first
> > place - I would agree with you there, but is th
Nigel Cunningham said the following:
You warmed my heart until...
Good to know someone reads my email =)
Why not? :> I guess you mean to the problem of slow booting in the first
place - I would agree with you there, but is there are reason why we
should have booting being the norm instead of normal
Ah Jim.
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:38, Jim Crilly wrote:
> I agree boot up is too slow and that some things should be started in the
> background, but not things that are required for the main purpose of the box
> to
> work properly, what should be started sync and what should be async is a hard
Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 09:30:54AM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
If it is not possible to use klibc together with a non-Linux
system (e.g. FreeBSD or Mach), then I would suggest to make
klibc an optional kernel patch and drop it from udev and
hotplug.
But it is not possible to use ude
Lee Revell said the following:
The reason I marked by response OT is that the time from power on to
userspace does not seem to be a big problem. It's the amount of time
from user space to presenting a login prompt that's way too long. My
distro (Debian) runs all the init scripts one at a time, an
On Feb 14, 2005, at 20:17, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 16:16 -0800, Tim Bird wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
But, I was referring more to things like GDM not being started until
all
the other init scripts are done. Why not start it first, and let the
network initialize while the user is logg
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 16:16 -0800, Tim Bird wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > But, I was referring more to things like GDM not being started until all
> > the other init scripts are done. Why not start it first, and let the
> > network initialize while the user is logging in?
>
> There are a number
Lee Revell wrote:
> But, I was referring more to things like GDM not being started until all
> the other init scripts are done. Why not start it first, and let the
> network initialize while the user is logging in?
There are a number of techniques used by CE vendors to get fast bootup
time. Some
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 15:21 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Lee> I don't see why so much effort goes into improving boot time
> Lee> on the kernel side when the most obvious user space problem
> Lee> is ignored.
>
> How much of a win is it to run init scripts in parallel? I seem to
> re
El Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:04:00 -0500,
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Last I heard Gentoo does not even do it by default.
>
> I don't see why so much effort goes into improving boot time on the
> kernel side when the most obvious user space problem is ignored.
There's stuff that it cou
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 15:16 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > I don't see why so much effort goes into improving boot time on the
> > kernel side when the most obvious user space problem is ignored.
>
> What user space problem is that?
That init scripts with no interdependencies are run sequentially rath
Lee> I don't see why so much effort goes into improving boot time
Lee> on the kernel side when the most obvious user space problem
Lee> is ignored.
How much of a win is it to run init scripts in parallel? I seem to
recall seeing tests that show that it doesn't make much difference and
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 06:04:00PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 09:51 +0100, Prakash Punnoor wrote:
> > Paolo Ciarrocchi schrieb:
> > > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:06:51 -0500, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 17:16 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > >>
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 09:51 +0100, Prakash Punnoor wrote:
> Paolo Ciarrocchi schrieb:
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:06:51 -0500, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 17:16 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> >>
> >>>All distros are trying to reduce boot time.
> >>
> >>They certainly
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:48:49AM +0100, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Greg KH write:
> > Very nice stuff. Ok, that's a good reason not to get rid of these
> > files, although they can be generated on the fly from the modules
> > themselves (like depmod does it.)
>
> Time to resurrect modinfo? ;-
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 09:30:54AM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >
> >Because we don't have an easy way yet to build against a copy of klibc
> >on a system? For right now, it's the simplest way to ensure that it
> >works for everyone, once klibc moves into the kernel tree I can re
Hello,
I was unable to compile hotplug-ng against klibc until this patch went
in:
--- /dev/null 2005-02-14 09:23:10.0 +0100
+++ hotplug-ng/klibc/include/features.h 2005-02-11 16:18:35.0
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+#ifndef_FEATURES_H
+#define_FEATURES_H 1
+
+#endif
Paolo Ciarrocchi schrieb:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:06:51 -0500, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 17:16 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
All distros are trying to reduce boot time.
They certainly aren't all trying very hard. Debian and Fedora (last
time I checked) do not even run the
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:06:51 -0500, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 17:16 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > All distros are trying to reduce boot time.
>
> They certainly aren't all trying very hard. Debian and Fedora (last
> time I checked) do not even run the init scripts
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 17:16 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> All distros are trying to reduce boot time.
They certainly aren't all trying very hard. Debian and Fedora (last
time I checked) do not even run the init scripts in parallel.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux
Greg KH wrote:
Because we don't have an easy way yet to build against a copy of klibc
on a system? For right now, it's the simplest way to ensure that it
works for everyone, once klibc moves into the kernel tree I can remove
it from udev and hotplug-ng.
If it is not possible to use klibc together
Hi,
Greg KH write:
> Very nice stuff. Ok, that's a good reason not to get rid of these
> files, although they can be generated on the fly from the modules
> themselves (like depmod does it.)
Time to resurrect modinfo? ;-)
Didn't we plan to get rid of that, too?
If we like to use information fro
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 09:06 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:47:07PM +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 22:41 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 02:30 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > > > hey greg
> > > >
> > > > i remember for some months bac
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:06:57PM +0100, Erik van Konijnenburg wrote:
> For an old version of the idea, see
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=284294
Very nice stuff. Ok, that's a good reason not to get rid of these
files, although they can be generated on the fly from t
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:49:57PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:37:31PM +0100, Erik van Konijnenburg wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:23:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:01:54PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
> > > > On Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:01:44
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:37:31PM +0100, Erik van Konijnenburg wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:23:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:01:54PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
> > > On Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:01:44AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > It's not only pci, but all types
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:23:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:01:54PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
> > On Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:01:44AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > It's not only pci, but all types of busses need this kind of "coldplug"
> > > functionality. And yes, I have p
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:06:40PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >I'd like to announce, yet-another-hotplug based userspace project:
> >linux-ng. This collection of code replaces the existing linux-hotplug
> >package with very tiny, compiled executable programs, instead of the
> >
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 05:16:09PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > Please, continue this project and encourage distros to switch to it (when
> > it exceeds hotplug in functionality and stability). Ubuntu currently is
> > trying to reduce boot time, and I bet something like this would factor in
> > (e
Greg KH wrote:
I'd like to announce, yet-another-hotplug based userspace project:
linux-ng. This collection of code replaces the existing linux-hotplug
package with very tiny, compiled executable programs, instead of the
existing bash scripts.
cpio is running to setup a test partition.
But one que
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:01:54PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:01:44AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > It's not only pci, but all types of busses need this kind of "coldplug"
> > functionality. And yes, I have plans to provide that functionality in
> > this package too.
> >
On Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:01:44AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> It's not only pci, but all types of busses need this kind of "coldplug"
> functionality. And yes, I have plans to provide that functionality in
> this package too.
>
> In fact, if anyone looking to contribute some well defined and easy to
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:52:37AM +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:40:33PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > - autoload programs for usb, scsi, and pci modules. These
> > programs determine what module needs to be loaded when the
> > kernel emits a hotplug event
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:47:07PM +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 22:41 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 02:30 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > > hey greg
> > >
> > > i remember for some months back, you posted something similar.. is this
> > > a version that
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 05:19:22PM +0100, Christian Borntr?ger wrote:
> On Friday 11 February 2005 07:46, Greg KH wrote:
> > And finally, even if you do use udevstart to manager /sbin/hotplug
> > events, you still need a module autoloader program. This package
> > provides executables for that pro
On Friday 11 February 2005 07:46, Greg KH wrote:
> And finally, even if you do use udevstart to manager /sbin/hotplug
> events, you still need a module autoloader program. This package
> provides executables for that problem, if you don't want to (or you
> can't) use the existing linux-hotplug scr
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 22:41 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 02:30 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > hey greg
> >
> > i remember for some months back, you posted something similar.. is this
> > a version thats ready for use? if it is! im gonna use it! :D
>
> Yes, this is that version
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:40:33PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> - autoload programs for usb, scsi, and pci modules. These
> programs determine what module needs to be loaded when the
> kernel emits a hotplug event for these types of devices. This
> works just like the exi
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 22:18 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > I'd like to announce, yet-another-hotplug based userspace project:
> > linux-ng. This collection of code replaces the existing linux-hotplug
> > package with very tiny, compiled executable programs,
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 02:30 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> hey greg
>
> i remember for some months back, you posted something similar.. is this
> a version thats ready for use? if it is! im gonna use it! :D
Yes, this is that version, cleaned up and given a proper build system,
and even tested on
Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> I'd like to announce, yet-another-hotplug based userspace project:
> linux-ng. This collection of code replaces the existing linux-hotplug
> package with very tiny, compiled executable programs, instead of the
> existing bash scripts.
>
> It currently provides
hey greg
i remember for some months back, you posted something similar.. is this
a version thats ready for use? if it is! im gonna use it! :D
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:52 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:40:33PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > I'd like to announce, yet-another-hotplug
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 08:07:23PM -0500, Patrick McFarland wrote:
>
> Please, continue this project and encourage distros to switch to it (when
> it exceeds hotplug in functionality and stability). Ubuntu currently is
> trying to reduce boot time, and I bet something like this would factor in
Greg KH wrote:
I'd like to announce, yet-another-hotplug based userspace project:
linux-ng. This collection of code replaces the existing linux-hotplug
package with very tiny, compiled executable programs, instead of the
existing bash scripts.
It currently provides the following:
- a /sbin
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:40:33PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> I'd like to announce, yet-another-hotplug based userspace project:
> linux-ng.
Bah. The name is hotplug-ng. Sorry about that...
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
I'd like to announce, yet-another-hotplug based userspace project:
linux-ng. This collection of code replaces the existing linux-hotplug
package with very tiny, compiled executable programs, instead of the
existing bash scripts.
It currently provides the following:
- a /sbin/hotplug multi
75 matches
Mail list logo
