On my moderately equipped laptop (1.6 GHz Pentium M, 1GB RAM, Samsung HM160HC P-ATA drive, ureadahead is not better then sreadahead when it comes to get my desktop ready to use. I think the time where disk and CPU has calmed down is the most telling figure for practical purposes. This time is pretty much the same. ureadahead seems to read a lot faster, but it blocks all other processes while it is running, afterwards these processes crave for CPU without using the HD much. With sreadahead both disk and CPU activity is evened out through the whole boot.
** Attachment added: "with ureadahead" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/35659702/acer-tormod-karmic-20091113-4.png -- performs poorly on slow HDD https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/432089 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
