From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 18 12:12:30 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 1E1A11065674; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:12:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from redbull.bpaserver.net (redbullneu.bpaserver.net [213.198.78.217]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D788FC1D; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:12:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (p54A55AA5.dip.t-dialin.net [84.165.90.165]) by redbull.bpaserver.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834032E264; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:12:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (webmail.leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9009A145440; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:12:10 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1216383130; bh=lYpikqQsIpoB5HfSC3NIZU04Yrje28G9+ LLpU+31wfw=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ILRBYQHWauDDxoDXEe+9rS7cZ/NsRWz7JpkpgjdVKTKnMlMjxKn7CgTP1eqht9Pef xDJPLxwFANXgj2uadpmfasESgKfipoyDsWgX5FIVoM906Gn5VUNmn0yrSrOeD+fF7Ha IExhilzwjMKjXC/ypJC38oiJbWbIhkHY/2192l4/dmm4s84Wi6CFV1Sze0WKc1LqW+C rFUPEzbjgy79R2EZmpk8WF4BdZvof00bkSS/9DLwSqlRxM5a/mbF/f3Io82KlxbJVLG wgLepyyqcV0ZZCP2ddGUT4N3SX7a0ef3Y07EntrgOdwgHRDQ4eYU+m5M3IcZ4EwN6CU RLab4/SiQ== Received: (from www@localhost) by webmail.leidinger.net (8.14.2/8.13.8/Submit) id m6ICC9Sk056056; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:12:09 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.cec.eu.int (pslux.cec.eu.int [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:12:08 +0200 Message-ID: <20080718141208.21091i4jkh44jc74@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:12:08 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Peter Jeremy References: <200807172056.08835.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> <487FCA89.2010308@FreeBSD.org> <20080718083725.97823be0tg13fn6s@webmail.leidinger.net> <20080718071806.GV62764@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20080718071806.GV62764@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.2-RC2) / FreeBSD-8.0 X-BPAnet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-BPAnet-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-BPAnet-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, ORDB-RBL, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-14.9, required 6, BAYES_00 -15.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10) X-BPAnet-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-Spam-Status: No Cc: 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 12:12:30 -0000 Quoting Peter Jeremy (from Fri, 18 Jul =20 2008 17:18:07 +1000): > On 2008-Jul-18 08:37:25 +0200, Alexander Leidinger =20 > 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. How do you define "booting Solaris"? Do you include the extensive =20 tests prior to loading the kernel into this? I'm not talking about the =20 time a 25k needs (even when you reducing the amount of testing on the =20 system controller, it takes a long while until it reaches a state =20 which I would call the start of the boot of the OS). We are talking =20 about the pure userland part of booting. What is done during the =20 startup of important programs in Solaris is not unreasonable (and =20 similar/comparable between Solaris versions), and still, there's a =20 nice difference between Solaris 9 and 10 if you count the time until =20 you can start to do useful stuff. >> 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 It depends, think about independent disks and or keeping the squid =20 data in RAM (e.g. tmpfs). But this doesn't matter, we will always be able to come up with =20 situations where the parallel start is not a good idea. We don't come =20 by default with such a situation and I'm sure a lot of configs out =20 there that don't fall into this class. Based upon your argument we =20 could say we can not enable parallel starting even if we see it is an =20 improvement for the reboot after the installation. What I wanted to know is if there's an substantial argument (it can =20 not behave similar to Solaris, because of A and B), or if he "just" =20 wants to know what the difference on FreeBSD is. > will just thrash the scheduler. (Though parallel starting of I/O and > CPU bound processes should be a win). You forgot about round-trip-time bound processes (basically processes =20 which wait for an event to occur before they say they are successfully =20 started), and we have several of them. Bye, Alexander. --=20 Those who hate and fight must stop themselves -- otherwise it is not stopped. =09=09-- Spock, "Day of the Dove", stardate unknown http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137