Optimizing Ubuntu - Possible?

Discussion in 'all things UNIX' started by suliman, Mar 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Arup

    Arup Guest

    People don't realize that boot time can only improve if part of OS is written into BIOS so the moment we press the button, the boot sector is already on and hardware has been written to it. Kinda useless persuasion, I would rather that they go for stability and overall operating speed. For boot speed, there is always hibernate.
     
  2. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    It's useless persuasion because it's wholly untrue.

    I take it that you're aware one of Jaunty's improvements is boot time. I wonder which part of the OS they wrote into the BIOS, then...
     
  3. Arup

    Arup Guest


    They didn't and guess what, its just a bit better than 8.10 and Windows 7 would still boot faster.........would that make it any better over Ubuntu? I seriously doubt that.

    Let me ask you, would you rather have an OS that boots a bit slower but is overall rock stable, has no nagging issues, apps run fast, has an easy and transparent interface that makes it a pleasure to work with rather than get into a me too race of I boot faster.

    Currently Ubuntu and other distros marked for home use seriously need to work on some basics like GDI, it needs better performance, OS and app interaction and needs to be easy to use. Also the driver install needs to get easier, no need for noobs to run scripts etc. In Windows, if there is a new driver for my sound card, nic, video etc. all I do is download and execute, its that simple. Sadly its not that simple in Linux, I have to wait for a kernel patch or another solution from the devs, but its getting better no doubt. The weakest link remains to be GDI. For instance, Ubuntu targets itself to the laptop users, there are lots of laptops with the built in Intel GMAX3100 chipset also known as G31, there are other variants like G35, X41 etc. All of them till today have issues with various Linux distros, Ubuntu being one if the biggest sufferer. With Compiz on, you can't log out and re-login, you get a blank screen. Also general GDI performance with Intel and ATI card is not up to the mark, the card manufacturer is to be blamed to an extent but so are the Linux devs. The next nagging move and sometimes glaring for noobs is the network manager bug, you boot into Ubuntu, no network with static LAN, you can't just edit the detected connection, you need to go into Ubuntu forums to find out the workaround. You have to delete existing detected auto eth connection and make one manually. The interface in Windows is far easier and Ubuntu can learn something from the Windows GUI in this case.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2009
  4. lewmur

    lewmur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Posts:
    332
    One doesn't preclude the other. As it stands, Linux spends a lot of time checking hardware each time you boot. I would prefer a boot option that remembers my hardware from my last session. Then, if my hardware changes, I could choose the "normal" boot process to "search" again for what's installed.
     
  5. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    10,215
    What do you mean by checking hardware?
    Mrk
     
  6. lewmur

    lewmur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Posts:
    332
    I'm mean checking to see what hardware is installed on the system. Is there a floppy? Is there a SCSI controller? And on and on. All you have to do is hit the esc key during boot and watch all of the processes that are intialized but that fail to know what I'm talking about. And the ones that fail often consume more time than the ones that don't.
     
  7. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Thats the same procedure done by HAL in Windows as well, it detects all hardware new or old before booting.
     
  8. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    10,215
    So, an operating system should just boot ... and hope for the best. And if your floppy has changed or you installed new dvd burner, what then? Ruin the device? These checks are important.

    Mrk
     
  9. lewmur

    lewmur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Posts:
    332
    So? Linux should to this because Windows does? My suggestion wasn't meant to indicate Linux did a worse job but that there is potentially a better way.

    Linux typically has a "Boot Menu" anyway. Adding an option to it is easy. And it shouldn't be difficult to have a basic hardware config file to eliminate the need to "pole" the hardware every time.
     
  10. lewmur

    lewmur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Posts:
    332
    No. The OS should boot and KNOW the best. If there is an error, it can then invoke the hardware polling. If you want the menu to default to polling, then fine. But for those that know what they are doing, then have a "Fast Boot" option and if the user wants to make that the default option they can. I know that I would have sense enough to choose the polling option if I added or changed hardware. At least I wouldn't have to re-activate.:D
     
  11. Arup

    Arup Guest


    How bout if a noob installs Linux and then he changes hardware, are you aware that unlike Windows, in Linux you can change entire hardware that is motherboard and CPU and yet, Linux will recognize all and run well on next reboot. In case of Windows, you will need to re-install, this is a huge advantage of Linux. Now why do you wish to take that away?

    Actually turning on 'readahead' and optimizing boot profile in Ubuntu will get you close to what you are asking for.
     
  12. lewmur

    lewmur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Posts:
    332
    I guess you didn't get the part about "option." You change hardware, you boot normally. No change in hardware, Fast Boot.
     
  13. Arup

    Arup Guest


    I do but then isn't hibernate supposed to do something similar?
     
  14. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,381
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    What happens if a device fails, without checking you would'nt know what is working and what is'nt.

    Also, does anyone actually have any figures to how much time would be saved ?

    Cheers, Nick
     
  15. lewmur

    lewmur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Posts:
    332
    How could a device fail without your knowing it? And how often does a device fail? And if one does, just reboot in normal mode.

    As to how much time would be saved, who knows until someone tries it.
     
  16. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,065
    Most of the boot time is the crappy legacy propriotry BIOS.

    the solution is coreboot
    its a shame not many motherboards are supported at this time.
     
  17. lewmur

    lewmur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Posts:
    332
    Hibernate, when it works, which isn't often in my experience, copies everything in memory to harddisk. And then has to restore in on the next boot. So, it depends on what you have loaded at shutdown as to how much time it takes to reload it and how much disk space is required for the hibernation file. If it works for you, great. I'm just throwing out an idea.

    But the principle isn't the same. What I'm suggesting is merely a simple list of your hardware devices so that the boot process doesn't spend time looking for devices that aren't there. For any given system, the list of devices that aren't there probably far exceeds those that are.

    Actually, in theory, Standby is a better option, IMO, than Hibernate. Standby is supposed to remove power from everything but memory. When you restart, the system power comes back, waits long enough for the drives to spin up, and resumes processing. Of course if you have a Video card with gobs of memory, you have to keep power on to it also. So why not just let the Sreensaver activate?

    The fact is, most people want to turn the computer off and reboot when they're ready.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2009
  18. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Hibernate copies your DMI HAL as well as memory to hdd, so next time you boot, it just tells the system what you have and boots fast, thats exactly what you are proposing if I am not mistaken. Also unlike standby where you still have to keep the PC on, hibernate lets you turn off power and then bring your system back to life faster. Hibernate works fine here with 8GB of memory unlike in Windows where putting anything more than 3GB would make Windows turn off hibernate.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.