Arch Linux

Alexvader

Member

Registered: 2009-09-04

Posts: 28

Qinit vs Finit-Arch

Hi forum

I am a boot time freak ... as such i have investigated a bit and found Finit-Arc

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25159

and Qinit

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25563

Which one leads to more dramatic reductions in boot time...?

I was wondering if I can boot my machine from grub to console in 5 less seconds...

Quote:
HP Pavilion dv5-1170
Processor: Intel® Core™2 Duo P8600 2.4Ghz
FSB: 1066 Mhz
Cache: 3MB Level 2
RAM: 4GB DDR2 (expansible to 8 GB)
HDD: 320 GB 5400rpm
Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT (512MB)
I have the 8 Gb configuration

Can I put this to boot Arch 2010.5 x86_64 in 5 seconds...? if not at least in less than 10 seconds...?

BRGDS

Alex

anonymous_user

Member

Registered: 2009-08-28

Posts: 3,059

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

AFAIK, quick-init is the successor (or rewrite) of finit.

Spacenick

Member

From: Germany

Registered: 2010-04-02

Posts: 168

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

But obviously even the best init can't work miracles against a slow harddrive, what needs to go to RAM simply needs to go to RAM and if the storage is slow that will take it's fair share of time

loafer

Member

From: the pub

Registered: 2009-04-14

Posts: 1,772

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

There are loads of people interested in this:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=98114

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=72156&p=1

But you can't make a cup of tea in the time saved.

---

All men have stood for freedom...
For freedom is the man that will turn the world upside down.
Gerrard Winstanley.

skottish

Forum Fellow

From: Here

Registered: 2006-06-16

Posts: 7,942

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

This isn't Arch specific, so moving...

sand_man

Member

From: Australia

Registered: 2008-06-10

Posts: 2,164

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

It's funny to think people spend large amounts of time to increase their boot time to eventually save time (wtf?)

---

ngoonee

Forum Fellow

From: Between Thailand and Singapore

Registered: 2009-03-17

Posts: 7,360

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

It's funny to think people spend large amounts of time to increase their boot time to eventually save time (wtf?)

Let's say I'm on holiday this week, but have a big multiple-location project going on where I'll be toting my laptop from location to location over the next month. My time this week is worth quite little in comparison to delays while customers are waiting.

Of course, in such situations I'd just use suspend . Quick boot is good geek cred though.

---

Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

takedown

Member

From: Argentina

Registered: 2008-08-31

Posts: 219

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

It's funny to think people spend large amounts of time to increase their boot time to eventually save time (wtf?)

why not?
code hackers, attack the boot time...

sand_man

Member

From: Australia

Registered: 2008-06-10

Posts: 2,164

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

I am using quick-init at home on my laptop so I'm not pointing fun at anyone in particular, I just think its funny in general

---

Alexvader

Member

Registered: 2009-09-04

Posts: 28

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

Hi...

Using Qinit from AUR, I managed to reduce a boot time of 15s to 5s from grub to console, in a mobo with these specs

Quote:
# Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo T5500 - 1.66GHz (x2), 667MHz FSB, 2MB L2 Cache
# RAM: 2048MB DDR2
# Hard Drive: 120GB Serial ATA 5400rpm
# Screen: 15.4" Widescreen Colour Shine TFT (1280x800 - 16:10)
# Optical Drive: DVD±RW Super Multi Double Layer Light Scribe Drive
# Graphics: ATI Radeon X2300 supporting 512MB HyperMemory
# Wireless LAN: 802.11a/b/g - Call for advice on Wireless Networking
# Bluetooth: Bluetooth Enabled
# Weight: 2.8kg
That's right from 15s to 5s... Lulzzz

In a HW like this...

Quote:
Processor: Intel® Core™2 Duo P8600 2.4Ghz
FSB: 1066 Mhz
Cache: 3MB Level 2
RAM: 8GB DDR2
HDD: 320 GB 5400rpm

I am likely to have a boot time of 3s from grub to tty1...  bit faster than a Mac.... 

BRGDS

Alex

demian

Member

From: Frankfurt, Germany

Registered: 2009-05-06

Posts: 709

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

you'll get grub to gui in 5 secs with an intel ssd (and maybe some tweaking).

---

no place like /home
github

sand_man

Member

From: Australia

Registered: 2008-06-10

Posts: 2,164

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

The only problem I find is that once I get to the console, it's a little sluggish because of all the background activity still going on. I guess its a bit of a trade off.

---

schen

Member

Registered: 2009-06-06

Posts: 468

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

How does Qinit work to get a faster boot speed?

evr

Arch Linux f@h Team Member

Registered: 2009-01-23

Posts: 554

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

How does Qinit work to get a faster boot speed?

From the Qinit website

How it works
The reimplementation of init-scripts consists in the modification of the inittab runlevels and the start of system and Xorg without udev.
The first system level contains the creation of static devices necessary to boot system until fscheck. Then Xorg is started and in runlevel 3 it starts udev, swapon, all services etc…
Quick-init is almost fast than finit-arc. At the moment quick-init should be full compatible with your system, but it stay in experimental state.

Knute

Member

From: Minot, ND

Registered: 2009-03-17

Posts: 604

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

It's funny to think people spend large amounts of time to increase their boot time to eventually save time (wtf?)

Let's say I'm on holiday this week, but have a big multiple-location project going on where I'll be toting my laptop from location to location over the next month. My time this week is worth quite little in comparison to delays while customers are waiting.

Of course, in such situations I'd just use suspend . Quick boot is good geek cred though.

Actually, this argument is really funny, simply because most people that you deal with are USED to inferior operating systems that make them wait.

So, unless you are dealing with a very organized amish person whose records are kept either on paper or in his head, the extra 5 or 10 seconds is NOTHING, simply because if this big multiple-location project is THAT important, then your presentation of this project will need to have the appropriate pre-prep time, so either your computer should already be on and set up already, or that project and your involvement in it is not nearly so crucial as you want to convince everyone.

If we are talking saving time, then you should wear your computer on your waist with the lid open, and ready to type or enter information at a moment's notice.  Because let's face it,  it takes a few more seconds to unzip a bag, reach in and pull the computer out, and then to open it! MY GOD how many hours are customers waiting for you to do that unnecessary business!

---

Knute

schen

Member

Registered: 2009-06-06

Posts: 468

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

Wait, so to fully utilize the quick-boot abilities of quick-init, I have to start X? I currently boot to runlevel 3, where I then xinit.

arch0r

Member

From: From the Chron-o-John

Registered: 2008-05-13

Posts: 597

Re: Qinit vs Finit-Arch

Wait, so to fully utilize the quick-boot abilities of quick-init, I have to start X? I currently boot to runlevel 3, where I then xinit.

i had to change qinittab AND inittab to boot into runlevel 5