From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 18 11:58:20 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A606106568B; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:58:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stb@lassitu.de) Received: from koef.zs64.net (koef.zs64.net [212.12.50.230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20AB8FC0A; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:58:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stb@lassitu.de) Received: from localhost by koef.zs64.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m6IBJ1Br030958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:19:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stb@lassitu.de) (authenticated as stb) Message-Id: <525E8FF6-307E-4DC9-B730-21435A2C2D2C@lassitu.de> From: Stefan Bethke To: Peter Jeremy In-Reply-To: <20080718071806.GV62764@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:19:00 +0200 References: <200807172056.08835.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> <487FCA89.2010308@FreeBSD.org> <20080718083725.97823be0tg13fn6s@webmail.leidinger.net> <20080718071806.GV62764@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1) Cc: Alexander Leidinger , Doug Barton , David Naylor , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rc improvements (wanted?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:58:20 -0000 Am 18.07.2008 um 09:18 schrieb Peter Jeremy: > On 2008-Jul-18 08:37:25 +0200, Alexander Leidinger > wrote: >> Are you aware that the parallel starting in Solaris 10 reduced the >> booting time by a nice percentage? > > Given that Solaris boots in geologic time, this probably wouldn't > be difficult. > >> If yes, do you expect that FreeBSD >> behaves significantly different or do you "just" want to see numbers? > > Parallel starting is not guaranteed to be an improvement. Starting a > whole pile of processes that are I/O bound during initialisation > (think squid or some databases) may be worse than starting them one > at a time. Likewise, a whole pile of processes that are CPU bound > will just thrash the scheduler. (Though parallel starting of I/O and > CPU bound processes should be a win). Just as a simple counter-example: it's very annoying when a startup script for a non-essential service is blocking startup for an essential one. (A Smokeping config of mine takes about 5 minutes to finish, and it's blocking sshd, as I found out the other day when I had to reboot the server.) Also see the repeated annoyances caused by dhclient on this list and elsewhere. Stefan -- Stefan Bethke Fon +49 170 346 0140