rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

yankees26 · 2006-10-04 11:10:14

I have fam added so xfce desktop will work properly, I don't know what else it does though. Also T-u-N-i-X, no need to have portmap in there because fam checks to see if it is running and if it isn't it'll start it. Same with dbus which is started by hal (said earlier in the topic, I believe).

dolby · 2006-10-04 16:34:10

well xfce was the reason i installed it but afaik it works properly even without adding it to the daemons

archuser · 2006-10-04 17:11:31

In gnome if I have the "synchronise with time servers" option ticked in adjust date & time, can I remove ntpd from the daemons line?

benplaut · 2006-10-05 02:26:51

.

Last edited by benplaut (2021-06-25 12:43:28)

slubman · 2006-10-05 20:35:38

benplaut wrote:

DAEMONS=(syslog-ng !network @netfs @crond @alsa !acpid @cpudyn @dnsmasq slim)
look OK?

I prefer to start the Login Manager (slim or kdm) in initab instead of daemon.

benplaut · 2006-10-05 21:10:43

.

Last edited by benplaut (2021-06-25 12:43:17)

karc · 2006-10-05 21:22:57

benplaut wrote:

slubman wrote:
benplaut wrote:
DAEMONS=(syslog-ng !network @netfs @crond @alsa !acpid @cpudyn @dnsmasq slim)
look OK?
I prefer to start the Login Manager (slim or kdm) in initab instead of daemon.
howdaya do dat? :oops:

At the end of /etc/inittab file:

x:5:respawn:/usr/bin/slim

I think it should do the job.

Snowman · 2006-10-06 01:02:22

karc wrote:

benplaut wrote:
slubman wrote:
benplaut wrote:
DAEMONS=(syslog-ng !network @netfs @crond @alsa !acpid @cpudyn @dnsmasq slim)
look OK?
I prefer to start the Login Manager (slim or kdm) in initab instead of daemon.
howdaya do dat? :oops:
At the end of /etc/inittab file:
x:5:respawn:/usr/bin/slim
I think it should do the job.

You also need to change

id:3:initdefault:

by

id:5:initdefault:

ralvez · 2006-10-06 01:44:20

archuser wrote:

In gnome if I have the "synchronise with time servers" option ticked in adjust date & time, can I remove ntpd from the daemons line?

If you remove the ntpd daemon then there is no way your system can sychronize. You see, ntpd acts a a client to a time server, so you need it.

Hope this helps.

R

veek · 2006-10-06 02:38:02

Nice thread archuser, never really thought about the potential benefits of backgrounding the daemons.

Strange thing, I discovered by checking pstree and ps that my alsa daemon doesn't seem to be running. It hasn't mattered though since I don't have any trouble with audio.

Is the daemon necessary? It's in my daemons array but it's apparently not loading (with or without backgrounding it).

Am I missing something?

Snowman · 2006-10-06 04:15:57

veek wrote:

Nice thread archuser, never really thought about the potential benefits of backgrounding the daemons.
Strange thing, I discovered by checking pstree and ps that my alsa daemon doesn't seem to be running. It hasn't mattered though since I don't have any trouble with audio.
Is the daemon necessary? It's in my daemons array but it's apparently not loading (with or without backgrounding it).
Am I missing something?

Yes. The alsa daemon is not an actual daemon in the sense that it is not continually running like the crond daemon for example. What the alsa daemon do is that on boot up, it runs a command to restore the sound volumes then quits. On shutdown. it runs a command to save the sound volume. This save you from the trouble of having to manually unmute/adjust the volume each time you boot up. The use of the daemon "system" is just to make it more user-friendly.

lessthanjake · 2006-10-06 05:30:54

I know it is more "clean" to have gdm/kdm/... in inttab, but it makes the boot prosess so slow! I have put @gdm as the third entry in DEAMONS and my login screen shows up way before all the other deamons are even finished starting up. As far as I can see, it's now drawback doing it like that.

veek · 2006-10-06 14:46:33

Snowman, thanks for the explanation.

archuser · 2006-10-06 17:24:18

ralvez wrote:

archuser wrote:
In gnome if I have the "synchronise with time servers" option ticked in adjust date & time, can I remove ntpd from the daemons line?
If you remove the ntpd daemon then there is no way your system can sychronize. You see, ntpd acts a a client to a time server, so you need it.
Hope this helps.
R

OK. Cheers for that.

Mr Green · 2006-10-06 17:40:12

DAEMONS=(@vmware @hal @mpd @sensors @cups @syslog-ng @network @crond @netfs @alsa @bluetooth @slim)

Mr Green · 2006-10-07 09:36:46

Why not add a flag to scripts in rc.d to tell init to background or not

then you only need to add daemons to list

get rid of '@' altogether

my2c

Lone_Wolf · 2006-10-25 09:18:46

I think it's more convenient to keep the @ in rc.conf daemons as it's more flexible and leaves the choice to background something with the user..

This is my daemons line :

DAEMONS=(syslog-ng network shorewall netfs crond dbus hal @alsa @vmware @timidity++ @cups @archstatsrc)

All backgrounded daemons are things i don't need right after starting, but other archusers may think differently.

enr1x · 2006-11-09 16:02:39

... called INIT-NG http://www.initng.org/ which is a replacement for init, and, at lest in the debian system i had before the gentoo system before the arch system i now have, could speedup the boot time from 1:30 to not more than 25 seconds.

BTW, what takes a lot of time in my decent box (AthlonXP 2600+, nForce2, 1.0GB DDRAM) is to load the modules at startup. I wish it was faster... Any suggestion?

Thanks,
Enric

phrakture · 2006-11-09 16:16:19

Why, oh why, does everyone think InitNG is going to save you so much boot time? The problem is not the init system, it's the kind of crap you run on boot. I have a mythtv box that boots from grub to X in under 10 seconds (average about 8 or so). My laptops boot in 15-20 seconds as well... the more crap you run, the slower your boot will be, regardless of initng, sysvinit, rinit, or any of the hundred other "solutions" to the artificial problem of "omg-slow-boot"

chrismortimore · 2006-11-09 16:30:32

phrakture wrote:

Why, oh why, does everyone think InitNG is going to save you so much boot time? The problem is not the init system, it's the kind of crap you run on boot. I have a mythtv box that boots from grub to X in under 10 seconds (average about 8 or so). My laptops boot in 15-20 seconds as well... the more crap you run, the slower your boot will be, regardless of initng, sysvinit, rinit, or any of the hundred other "solutions" to the artificial problem of "omg-slow-boot"

When I got a new hard drive, my boot time halved. So it isn't always the crap you run on boot, sometimes it's just the crap you boot.

soloport · 2006-11-09 17:57:04

phrakture wrote:

Why, oh why, does everyone think InitNG is going to save you so much boot time? The problem is not the init system, it's the kind of crap you run on boot.

Please enlighten us! I have no idea what you mean by "crap you run on boot" nor how I would control it. Are you referring to daemons? (That one's easy.) Are you referring to modules? Then it's a fairly daunting mystery.

Is there a howto or wiki I could read about it? Example: "Run this command string to determine the modules you're loading" Next: "Run this command string to show the modules you're using". Now: "Do the math". No, wait, don't just say "do the math". Please also explain the steps to eliminate the baggage.

That would be very useful information. The point you make about "it's not about which ever init" is informative, though. Thanks.

marxav · 2006-11-09 19:47:40

I must concur with you soloport. That way we could all learn something.

Captain Spaulding · 2006-11-20 17:07:32

FWIW, don't background hald, it will break automounters such as gvm or ivman.

palandir · 2006-11-21 06:24:10

enr1x wrote:

... called INIT-NG http://www.initng.org/ which is a replacement for init, and, at lest in the debian system i had before the gentoo system before the arch system i now have, could speedup the boot time from 1:30 to not more than 25 seconds.

1:30 is way too much, there probably was something going wrong, e.g. a script trying to do sth. for many seconds then giving up/timing out, thus blocking all scripts thereafter. Other init systems may not wait for single scripts to "time out", and run more things in parallel, that's probably why you experienced that extreme speed boost. But the script causing the problem is probably still failing in the background, and if you had fixed that instead of changing to a different init system, the speed would have been the same.

From my own experience boot time was *never* over ~40 seconds, with lightweight distributions such as Arch and Crux ~20 seconds, and no "advanced" init system could speed that up noticeably.

As phrakture wrote, speed differences are usually minimal when you load the same daemons, modules etc. The differences between init systems AFAIK mostly matter to the people who write them (easier to create/modify, to handle dependencies, and so on), and much less to the end users.

noriko · 2006-11-21 07:47:17

dae~line [gdm @syslog-ng @network @alsa @httpd]
boot time is about 20seconds [athlon-xp.M,2800+]
loading of modules?, i don't think i've ever noticed it...the longest thing is udev|uevents which ranges, 1-3 seconds.

btw,that 20 seconds is, from grub to gdm login prompt.. and as wel all know gdm is one slow ass karp, approx.3-4 seconds to init nvidia/X+gdm

backgrounding pretty much everything, in dae~line (safe?[syslog] i dunno, but it's caused no probs, ) everything saved me about 6 seconds .. i assume the new Ubuntu 6.10[?] used the new init system they proposed, it takes approx 30 seconds to boot.. same for wind[bl]ows xp (and that's with the unusable desktop{if u know what i mean})

so, to sum up.. as suggested by numerous other peoples,
the init system has very little to do with how fast ur system boots;
it's generally ho much stuff u load at boot.. i.e (hal+dbus) to add fancy icons to the desktop, is there a need for it?

i doubt it... what about fstab, and symlinks.

anyways, that's my essay on that

Arch Linux

#26 2006-10-04 11:10:14

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#27 2006-10-04 16:34:10

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#28 2006-10-04 17:11:31

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#29 2006-10-05 02:26:51

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#30 2006-10-05 20:35:38

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#31 2006-10-05 21:10:43

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#32 2006-10-05 21:22:57

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#33 2006-10-06 01:02:22

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#34 2006-10-06 01:44:20

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#35 2006-10-06 02:38:02

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#36 2006-10-06 04:15:57

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#37 2006-10-06 05:30:54

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#38 2006-10-06 14:46:33

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#39 2006-10-06 17:24:18

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#40 2006-10-06 17:40:12

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#41 2006-10-07 09:36:46

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#42 2006-10-25 09:18:46

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#43 2006-11-09 16:02:39

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#44 2006-11-09 16:16:19

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#45 2006-11-09 16:30:32

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#46 2006-11-09 17:57:04

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#47 2006-11-09 19:47:40

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#48 2006-11-20 17:07:32

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#49 2006-11-21 06:24:10

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

#50 2006-11-21 07:47:17

Re: rc.conf DAEMONS '@' question

Board footer