From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 13 09:36:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343BD16A4CE for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from carver.gumbysoft.com (carver.gumbysoft.com [66.220.23.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7215443D45 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:36:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwhite@gumbysoft.com) Received: by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 65B9672DC9; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:36:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6361372DC7; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:36:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:36:27 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White To: Rob MacGregor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040113093334.M63000@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question on quieting kernel boot X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:36:31 -0000 On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Rob MacGregor wrote: > I'm sure this'll cause a long debate, however... > > What I'd like is some option to make the boot quieter - a way of hiding the > informational kernel messages that (once the system has been built) serve > little purpose. I'm specifically referring to the identification of > devices, loading of kernel modules, config of the loopback interface (or any > other statically configured interfaces), messages about clean disk > partitions etc. You could enable serial console -- then you'll get nothing until the ttyv* terminals start up. But if something explodes, you'll have to plug in a serial cable. :) Killing the kenrel output is probably doable but removing output from rc scripts is a bit more sizable task. > The advantage (from my perspective) is that the remaining messages should be > error messages and messages confirming service startup. That way spotting > problems should be easier. I've seen the boot so many times that I know when it looks wrong, but I'm wierd and not a part of the redsplat generation. > Is this possible already? If not would it be useful? There used to be a way of hiding the kernel boot behind a spash screen, not sure if that still works. -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org