Mach Boot

zowki · 2009-09-24 13:52:15

MACH BOOT claims to be the fastest booting live Linux distro ever. They say this guy managed to do a 5.68 second boot from power on to X (IceWM)! You may have seen other threads in the forums claiming to boot Arch Linux in 4 seconds but that is only booting up to the console login. Not only does it boot fast but they say "launching apps is also very fast".
Heres the site:
http://www.machboot.com/

It says in broken English:

Customizable. You can make it "MACH" with any distribution, including your original one.

Does this mean we can use MACH BOOT with arch to make it super fast? I don't fully comprehend what MACH BOOT actually is. It doesn't explain very thoroughly in English. Is it just a set of hacked init scripts and hacked kernel that make the system fast? I'm gonna give this a shot and report back.

lolilolicon · 2009-09-24 14:01:04

Looks it hacks the CD-ROM...

Ranguvar · 2009-09-24 18:57:26

Distrowatch and some other places reviewed it, it works as claimed. Seems to be a dead project now though, and little to no information is available on how it managed such an insane boot speed. Shame.

zowki · 2009-09-25 01:45:39

Considering that they are using GNU licensed code, don't they have to distribute source code and stuff?

flamelab · 2009-09-25 01:51:37

For the boot time: Download the iso and see what machboot.sh contains I'm curious.

Ranguvar · 2009-09-25 02:01:43

zowki wrote:

Considering that they are using GNU licensed code, don't they have to distribute source code and stuff?

They should, yeah. I don't know the situation too well.

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue … 17#feature

Aprz · 2009-09-25 02:33:21

Not for everything though. If they made modifications to the anything that was GNU then yeh, but if it something outside of it, I don't think they have to.

Does look pretty amazing. I know for myself, I was able to achieve a 9s boot time to fully graphical X on my Intel Celeron M 440 @ 1.86GHz on my laptop (was using a laptop hard drive too, 5400 rpm, not an SSD) so I like to brag about that (still), but that required me using static /dev (so if I were to do this on a LiveCD, things like maybe special speakers or something might not work if I didn't create the device node for it that udev would normally create for it), a static kernel that was well configured (it was 1.6M with gzip compression or 1.4M with lzma, I used lzma... remember it's static so no modules taking away that dynamicness and ease where it would be able to work on anything so not a good idea for a LiveCD), and a well configured /etc/rc.sysinit, but I was looking into writing my own initscripts in C which could've marginally slice off milliseconds or maybe seconds I think (the idea that it would be native binary and not reading configuration instead - just launch everything using execvp() or something dumb, edit /etc/inittab to not use /etc/rc.sysinit). I used dwm (definitely going to be up faster than something like Gnome or KDE), no background, etc... So I had a really simple setup. Oh, this was with 2.6.31 (and been doing since) too, which Intel by then had a feature called fastboot that cut off seconds (these guys didn't have the same benefit.

What a shame it seems to be a dead project. I hope they provided source codes. I don't think it is just the initscripts, but from you said Zowki, sounds like an initscript (I have tried einit before -> now called kyuba, I don't know how that project is going). But it's easy to replace that, but sounds pointless to tell that you can make it Mach Boot with any distro, yet you have to replace this, that, this, and that to do it (pretty much replacing the distro).

smartboyathome · 2009-09-25 04:42:35

Aprz wrote:

Not for everything though. If they made modifications to the anything that was GNU then yeh, but if it something outside of it, I don't think they have to.
Does look pretty amazing. I know for myself, I was able to achieve a 9s boot time to fully graphical X on my Intel Celeron M 440 @ 1.86GHz on my laptop (was using a laptop hard drive too, 5400 rpm, not an SSD) so I like to brag about that (still), but that required me using static /dev (so if I were to do this on a LiveCD, things like maybe special speakers or something might not work if I didn't create the device node for it that udev would normally create for it), a static kernel that was well configured (it was 1.6M with gzip compression or 1.4M with lzma, I used lzma... remember it's static so no modules taking away that dynamicness and ease where it would be able to work on anything so not a good idea for a LiveCD), and a well configured /etc/rc.sysinit, but I was looking into writing my own initscripts in C which could've marginally slice off milliseconds or maybe seconds I think (the idea that it would be native binary and not reading configuration instead - just launch everything using execvp() or something dumb, edit /etc/inittab to not use /etc/rc.sysinit). I used dwm (definitely going to be up faster than something like Gnome or KDE), no background, etc... So I had a really simple setup. Oh, this was with 2.6.31 (and been doing since) too, which Intel by then had a feature called fastboot that cut off seconds (these guys didn't have the same benefit.
What a shame it seems to be a dead project. I hope they provided source codes. I don't think it is just the initscripts, but from you said Zowki, sounds like an initscript (I have tried einit before -> now called kyuba, I don't know how that project is going). But it's easy to replace that, but sounds pointless to tell that you can make it Mach Boot with any distro, yet you have to replace this, that, this, and that to do it (pretty much replacing the distro).

[off-topic]Would you mind posting a howto on how you did the static dev sometime? The only one that I ever found was on its.alrig.ht, which was more like notes, and wasn't able to do it (it trashed my install). If so, that would be great![/off-topic]

On topic: I am going to download it and test it out. Seems like it may be worth having in my collection, even if it is old.

zowki · 2009-09-25 07:45:47

I could possibly sue him for violating the GNU license. He is basing it off Debian without giving source code and without redistributing the GNU license document. Any lawyers here reading this?

Aprz · 2009-09-25 09:19:34

smartboyathome wrote:

[off-topic]Would you mind posting a howto on how you did the static dev sometime? The only one that I ever found was on its.alrig.ht, which was more like notes, and wasn't able to do it (it trashed my install). If so, that would be great![/off-topic]

I've actually mentioned it here before. There are two methods I use, which I mention both here.

I provided a link the static /dev post I made here, which this is a post in how fast yoru startup is. I made a couple of notes about bootchart, configuring the kernel, static /dev, editing /etc/rc.sysinit, different initscripts such as einit, and so on. The main thing I want to point out though is that if you know what you need in the kernel then I highly recommend doing this:

sed -i 's/\(^[A-Z_0-9]*\)\(=.*$\)/# \1 is not set/' .config

What used to happen when I configured the kernel was that I would have to go through everything, N it, or Y it. The problem was that I often missed stuff so I would get a kernel with features or drivers that I do not use. So using this method, if you know what you need, you can get a very minimal kernel very easy. My kernel is only 1.4M using lzma compression and originally 1.6M using gzip compression. It's completely static, no modules. A lot of people mention that compiling the kernel has no noticeable effect or just change the numbers that don't matter like bootchart, but for me, it had a significant difference. It's not even a placebo. Looking at the numbers, it's huge too. I went from default kernel booting about 35 seconds (I don't remember the exact number, might even be in the link I provided if you brose back) from what I can recall when I first started to being about 15 seconds, and with experience, got it below 9 seconds without cutting features (other than dynamicness - being able to use this with other hardware).

I'm pretty crazy about seeing how much space I use on my hard drive too, I use 700M with everything I use (this is including Firefox, Xorg, Pidgin, Java, Flash, etc...), and when I first install, it's less than 300M, which I think it's pretty awesome.

I mentioned here, not sure if it's true, how logical it is, or whatever. Not a rocket scientist so I am not sure, but just a thought that nobody ever got back to me on that, but if you're interested, here also. It's on partitioning and how it could possibly speed things up, but just a thought really, not something I can say is true. I have nothing to back it up. Nothing...

Last edited by Aprz (2009-09-25 09:26:54)

zowki · 2009-09-25 09:22:53

Aprz wrote:

zowki wrote:
I could possibly sue him for violating the GNU license. He is basing it off Debian without giving source code and without redistributing the GNU license document. Any lawyers here reading this?
I've actually mentioned it here before. There are two methods I use, which I mention both here.
I provided a link the static /dev post I made here, which this is a post in how fast yoru startup is. I made a couple of notes about bootchart, configuring the kernel, static /dev, editing /etc/rc.sysinit, different initscripts such as einit, and so on. The main thing I want to point out though is that if you know what you need in the kernel then I highly recommend doing this:
sed -i 's/$^[A-Z_0-9]*$$=.*$$/# \1 is not set/' .config
What used to happen when I configured the kernel was that I would have to go through everything, N it, or Y it. The problem was that I often missed stuff so I would get a kernel with features or drivers that I do not use. So using this method, if you know what you need, you can get a very minimal kernel very easy. My kernel is only 1.4M using lzma compression and originally 1.6M using gzip compression. It's completely static, no modules. A lot of people mention that compiling the kernel has no noticeable effect or just change the numbers that don't matter like bootchart, but for me, it had a significant difference. It's not even a placebo. Looking at the numbers, it's huge too. I went from default kernel booting about 35 seconds (I don't remember the exact number, might even be in the link I provided if you brose back) from what I can recall when I first started to being about 15 seconds, and with experience, got it below 9 seconds without cutting features (other than dynamicness - being able to use this with other hardware).
I'm pretty crazy about seeing how much space I use on my hard drive too, I use 700M with everything I use (this is including Firefox, Xorg, Pidgin, Java, Flash, etc...), and when I first install, it's less than 300M, which I think it's pretty awesome.
I mentioned here, not sure if it's true, how logical it is, or whatever. Not a rocket scientist so I am not sure, but just a thought that nobody ever got back to me on that, but if you're interested, here also. It's on partitioning and how it could possibly speed things up, but just a thought really, not something I can say is true. I have nothing to back it up. Nothing...

So let me get this straight, you are the developer for MACH BOOT?

Aprz · 2009-09-25 09:25:25

Me? No!

Edit: Oops, I made a mistake with quoting. Hold on. No wonder for the confusion.

Edit: Heh, fixed. Mind getting rid of that quote? Don't want any further confusion. Sorry for the confusion already. I wasn't thinking when I took that quote.

Edit: Doh! I just realized what a retard I am too cause all this time I've been having it copy everything from what part of the hard drive to another part to populate /dev, but after reading what that guy says in the website you mentioned... that's hellav smarter, but instead of the hotplugging thing, get rid of that, create all the nodes you need for that also. I wonder if there is a speed increase/decrease. What is the purpose of mounting tmpfs /dev anyhow? Speed up creating/deleting device nodes? That makes me wonder...

Last edited by Aprz (2009-09-25 09:50:10)

damjan · 2009-09-25 23:24:12

What is the purpose of mounting tmpfs /dev anyhow? Speed up creating/deleting device nodes? That makes me wonder...

the point is that udev creates device nodes dynamically and it should start from a clean state, and since it can create and delete a lot of files there's no reason to thrash the filesystem.

If you don't use udev, there's no reason for a tmpfs /dev

ngoonee · 2009-09-26 00:15:05

This has got me interested, if I were to use a static kernel (no loadable modules) that would mean I couldn't use, for example, VirtualBox PUEL and nvidia binary drivers?

Aprz · 2009-09-26 06:22:39

damjan wrote:

What is the purpose of mounting tmpfs /dev anyhow? Speed up creating/deleting device nodes? That makes me wonder...
the point is that udev creates device nodes dynamically and it should start from a clean state, and since it can create and delete a lot of files there's no reason to thrash the filesystem.
If you don't use udev, there's no reason for a tmpfs /dev

Ah, that make sense. Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking a little too hard and over thought it thinking it was some sort of speed thing, but it's just a clever way to having a clean slate everytime the computer boots up, haha.

ngoonee · 2009-09-26 07:20:22

Aprz wrote:

damjan wrote:
What is the purpose of mounting tmpfs /dev anyhow? Speed up creating/deleting device nodes? That makes me wonder...
the point is that udev creates device nodes dynamically and it should start from a clean state, and since it can create and delete a lot of files there's no reason to thrash the filesystem.
If you don't use udev, there's no reason for a tmpfs /dev
Ah, that make sense. Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking a little too hard and over thought it thinking it was some sort of speed thing, but it's just a clever way to having a clean slate everytime the computer boots up, haha.

If you read carefully, he also mentions thrashing. I'm not sure how many creations and deletions are done by udev though... not familiar with it. I'd think firefox is MUCH worse.

Aprz · 2009-09-26 07:34:27

ngoonee wrote:

If you read carefully, he also mentions thrashing. I'm not sure how many creations and deletions are done by udev though... not familiar with it. I'd think firefox is MUCH worse.

Yeh, I read carefully and saw that.

jumico · 2009-09-28 17:16:13

xpud boots super fast and I think webconverger would too but they are basically just browsers. I believe tiny core boots quickly as well.

Interesting article bout speeding up boot.
http://www.improvedsource.com/view.php/ … allenge/3/

I think most bios's take too much time during boot.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-09-24 13:52:15

Mach Boot

#2 2009-09-24 14:01:04

Re: Mach Boot

#3 2009-09-24 18:57:26

Re: Mach Boot

#4 2009-09-25 01:45:39

Re: Mach Boot

#5 2009-09-25 01:51:37

Re: Mach Boot

#6 2009-09-25 02:01:43

Re: Mach Boot

#7 2009-09-25 02:33:21

Re: Mach Boot

#8 2009-09-25 04:42:35

Re: Mach Boot

#9 2009-09-25 07:45:47

Re: Mach Boot

#10 2009-09-25 09:19:34

Re: Mach Boot

#11 2009-09-25 09:22:53

Re: Mach Boot

#12 2009-09-25 09:25:25

Re: Mach Boot

#13 2009-09-25 23:24:12

Re: Mach Boot

#14 2009-09-26 00:15:05

Re: Mach Boot

#15 2009-09-26 06:22:39

Re: Mach Boot

#16 2009-09-26 07:20:22

Re: Mach Boot

#17 2009-09-26 07:34:27

Re: Mach Boot

#18 2009-09-28 17:16:13

Re: Mach Boot

Board footer