FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-28-2008, 04:24 AM
Dimi Paun
 
Default F8/9 6-16x slower than XP to boot

Folks,

I have reported in the past slow boot times. I have performed
some more tests that may help people improve the situation.

Hardware: 2x2.13 GHz Intel Core Duo 6400, 4GB RAM
Software: Fedora 8, running Innotek's Virtual Box
Virtual Hardware: 538MB RAM, 8GB HDD
OS in Virtual Box: Fedora 9 Beta and XP

Test was to boot the box and start Firefox to the point where I can
interact with it (i.e. type in location bar).

Summary:
* F8 on real hardware, without BIOS time: 2:15
* F9 on virtual hardware: 7:00
* XP on virtual hardware: 0:22

For F8 boot, here is a breakdown of times:
0:00 -- Grub starts
1:25 -- login prompt
1:50 -- I can click on the Firefox icon
2:15 -- Firefox becomes usable

For F9 Beta boot, being so slow, I could record more details:
0:00 -- start of virtual box
0:45 -- "Welcome to Fedora" shows
1:30 -- udev finishes (took 45'!)
1:40 -- first graphics show (rhgb)
3:20 -- X restarts (I guess rhgb ends)
4:00 -- login prompt
6:15 -- Firefox icon is clickable
7:00 -- Firefox becomes usable

A few notes:
* I took out all times for user interaction
* I repeated the tests a few times, the results are stable
* For whatever reason, Fedora 9 Beta feels very sluggish in the
virtual machine (even the mouse stutters), whereas XP runs
extremely well. Maybe Innotek did some Windows-only optimizations?
* I measured to the point where I could interact with Firefox.
However, at that point XP appeared more responsive than Fedora,
even when compared to the Fedora that was running on the real
hardware, with a lot more RAM available.
* Even when comparing Fedora on real hardware vs XP on VM,
it took longer to just start Firefox in Linux vs. the entire
boot + starting of Firefox in Windows!

I'd be glad to provide more information if people are interested.

--
Dimi Paun <dimi@lattica.com>
Lattica, Inc.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 03-28-2008, 04:37 AM
Andrew Farris
 
Default F8/9 6-16x slower than XP to boot

Dimi Paun wrote:

For F9 Beta boot, being so slow, I could record more details:
0:00 -- start of virtual box
0:45 -- "Welcome to Fedora" shows
1:30 -- udev finishes (took 45'!)


It looks to me like Virtual Box has serious issues (bugs). This is absurdly
slow compared to my machines: macbook core 2 duo both as physical install and
vmware virtual machines (x86 and x86_64), and P4 2Ghz 1Gb rdram.


--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 03-28-2008, 04:59 AM
Dimi Paun
 
Default F8/9 6-16x slower than XP to boot

On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 22:37 -0700, Andrew Farris wrote:
> It looks to me like Virtual Box has serious issues (bugs). This is
> absurdly slow compared to my machines: macbook core 2 duo both as
> physical install and vmware virtual machines (x86 and x86_64), and P4
> 2Ghz 1Gb rdram.

Oh, for sure there's something fishy in there. The only reason why I did
this test was that XP in VM was so fast (6x faster!) when compared to F8
on real hardware (with 8x more RAM) that I thought maybe somehow running
in the VM may be an advantage...

No matter how you cut it, we are at least 6x slower than XP to start.
Last time I brought this up, there were people suggesting that it's just
and impression, that XP is unusable for minutes after you login, etc.

I wanted to test this, and it didn't seem so. In fact, I found that even
though it was running in the VM, in XP I could click on the Firefox icon
within a few seconds from login, and browser will start quickly, and be
more responsive than the one started on F8 running on the real hardware.

Heck, XP boots in the VM faster than I can start Firefox on the real
hardware! (That happens after boot only of course, later on from a warm
cache it takes only 4sec to start Firefox vs. 1sec in XP)

--
Dimi Paun <dimi@lattica.com>
Lattica, Inc.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 03-28-2008, 11:48 AM
Lubomir Kundrak
 
Default F8/9 6-16x slower than XP to boot

Hi,

On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 01:24 -0400, Dimi Paun wrote:

> * Even when comparing Fedora on real hardware vs XP on VM,
> it took longer to just start Firefox in Linux vs. the entire
> boot + starting of Firefox in Windows!


Not to devaluate your tests -- please bear in mind that we offer more
features and are much more secure than XP. I am wondering what the
results would be if you kickstarted fedora just with icewm and firefox
and compared that one.

NB: I bet my XT with 640K RAM boots Minix faster than my workstation
would boot XP. It's all about features again.

--
Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 03-28-2008, 12:49 PM
Dimi Paun
 
Default F8/9 6-16x slower than XP to boot

On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 13:48 +0100, Lubomir Kundrak wrote:
>
> Not to devaluate your tests -- please bear in mind that we offer more
> features and are much more secure than XP. I am wondering what the
> results would be if you kickstarted fedora just with icewm and firefox
> and compared that one.

They will be better, but I don't think by much -- it takes almost 1.5min
just to get to the point were we start GNOME, IceWM can't go back in
time.

And what features can we offer that we are willing to pay by an order
of magnitude in performance? (Firefox after boot in XP starts in 2-3s,
whereas in Fedora it takes 25-28s!).

The danger here is that we make ourselves feel better and ignore the
problem by saying we offer more features. 600% slower to start! I
remember the days back in 99 or around there, when Windows came on top
in performance. For months we tried to blame it on biased tests, etc.
Then the kernel folks got their act together and fixed the problem.

The same must happen here, and the first step is to acknowledge it.
This is a much more difficult problem I think then the other one,
and I'm afraid that RedHat is the only one capable to solve it (because
they employ enough key people in all the right places:
kernel/glibc/toolchain/GNOME). This is similar in the way to good thread
support that required tricky changes in kernel/glibc/toolchain.

Hey, come to think of it, we need Ingo to look at it!

I'm not even sure where the problem lies. Is PE inherently faster than
ELF? Is it the on-demand paging of apps that is done in the kernel under
Windows responsible for that much faster startup times? Do they have
that much better compilers/linkers? Or maybe better preloading from
disk?

I personally think a key piece in the puzzle is why is Firefox so
darn slow to load under Linux when compared to Windows?

--
Dimi Paun <dimi@lattica.com>
Lattica, Inc.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 03-28-2008, 01:04 PM
"Eric Mesa"
 
Default F8/9 6-16x slower than XP to boot

I think it's a bit of a false comparison - give that they're running in VMs.* After all, F8 on the real hardware is only about 4 times slower.* To throw in my own experience, I have a self-built, pretty nice P4 running Win XP and a cheap, $300, few years old Emachine running Fedora 8.* If I start them up at the same time, even counting the time it takes me to type in my username/password on Linux (in Windows it just boots straight to the desktop), I can use the Linux/Gnome computer up to a minute or more sooner than I can Windows.* Why?* Because Norton Internet Security takes forever and a day to start up and until it does, I can't do ANYTHING on my computer.* Even clicking the start button is a 20+ second wait.* Norton is essential to keep my computer running, so it would be unfair to compare it to Windows without Norton.* (BTW - I'm running Norton 2008 which runs a heckuva lot faster than 2007)


And my Ubuntu machine (using upstart?) which is an under-powered laptop starts up even faster than Fedora.* So yeah, Fedora needs to work on startup time, but I can be browing the internet/doing w/e I want a LOT faster in Fedora than in Windows.


On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Dimi Paun <dimi@lattica.com> wrote:



On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 13:48 +0100, Lubomir Kundrak wrote:

>

> Not to devaluate your tests -- please bear in mind that we offer more

> features and are much more secure than XP. I am wondering what the

> results would be if you kickstarted fedora just with icewm and firefox

> and compared that one.



They will be better, but I don't think by much -- it takes almost 1.5min

just to get to the point were we start GNOME, IceWM can't go back in

time.



And what features can we offer that we are willing to pay by an order

of magnitude in performance? (Firefox after boot in XP starts in 2-3s,

whereas in Fedora it takes 25-28s!).



The danger here is that we make ourselves feel better and ignore the

problem by saying we offer more features. 600% slower to start! I

remember the days back in 99 or around there, when Windows came on top

in performance. For months we tried to blame it on biased tests, etc.

Then the kernel folks got their act together and fixed the problem.



The same must happen here, and the first step is to acknowledge it.

This is a much more difficult problem I think then the other one,

and I'm afraid that RedHat is the only one capable to solve it (because

they employ enough key people in all the right places:

kernel/glibc/toolchain/GNOME). This is similar in the way to good thread

support that required tricky changes in kernel/glibc/toolchain.



Hey, come to think of it, we need Ingo to look at it!



I'm not even sure where the problem lies. Is PE inherently faster than

ELF? Is it the on-demand paging of apps that is done in the kernel under

Windows responsible for that much faster startup times? Do they have

that much better compilers/linkers? Or maybe better preloading from

disk?



I personally think a key piece in the puzzle is why is Firefox so

darn slow to load under Linux when compared to Windows?



--

Dimi Paun <dimi@lattica.com>

Lattica, Inc.



--

fedora-devel-list mailing list

fedora-devel-list@redhat.com

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list



--
Eric Mesa
http://www.ericsbinaryworld.com
http://server.ericsbinaryworld.com

"Do not worry about those things that are outside of your circle of influence. For since they are outside of your power to control them it is simply a waste of time and energy to dwell on them. Instead, turn your attention to those things that you can control and grow your influence in those areas and you will see the effects begin to trickle out to those items that were previously out of your power to influence." – Eric Mesa inspired by Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 03-28-2008, 02:07 PM
Emmanuel Seyman
 
Default F8/9 6-16x slower than XP to boot

* Dimi Paun [28/03/2008 15:03] :
>
> The same must happen here, and the first step is to acknowledge it.

The first step is actually to eliminate variables in the test so as
to better isolate the problem. Can you run your test again with the
same platforms on real hardware ? That would eliminate any slowness
due to the virtual setup.

Emmanuel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 03-28-2008, 02:51 PM
"Balaji Ravindran"
 
Default F8/9 6-16x slower than XP to boot

Hi,

Yea accept,

1. What you might want to try is use either VM or real hardware, but if you choose something stick to it, (meaning perform the tests for the OS's with same specs) I'm sure you would have done this., am just asking you to double check.


2. GNOME and XP has lot of different start-up services which might affect the test results., SO i would suggest after the initial install of both OS, disable any un-important startup services in both., and restart the test. (When i say services it also includes, disabling any anti-virus blah blah blah)


3. Perform the test in different VM's(VM's by different vendors) possibility is that some vendors custom there optimizations for a particular OS, so by performing the test on different VM's from various vendors we can come at an average time, would lead to a better benchmark.


4. Perform the tests with KDE and XP, coz, that might be a more closer match with XP's startup themes and processes.

5. Then running the test 2-3 times with the above procedures will give a more accurate result, and will also help identify where exactly fedora is slower.


(Am sure your findings are true, but inorder to help developers isolate the problem requires more vigorous testing)

Am sure other people will also be helping in* testing simultaneously, which should reduce your burden a bit.


Thanks

Balaji R
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel.seyman@club-internet.fr> wrote:

* Dimi Paun [28/03/2008 15:03] :

>

> The same must happen here, and the first step is to acknowledge it.



The first step is actually to eliminate variables in the test so as

to better isolate the problem. Can you run your test again with the

same platforms on real hardware ? That would eliminate any slowness

due to the virtual setup.



Emmanuel



--

fedora-devel-list mailing list

fedora-devel-list@redhat.com

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 03-29-2008, 12:59 AM
"Oscar Victorio Calixto Bacho"
 
Default F8/9 6-16x slower than XP to boot

*you can see phoronix benchmark
*
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_boot_perf&num=1
*
Oscar
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 03-29-2008, 08:08 AM
Martin Sourada
 
Default F8/9 6-16x slower than XP to boot

On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 10:42 +0100, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek wrote:
> Dnia 2008-03-28, pią o godzinie 19:59 -0600, Oscar Victorio Calixto
> Bacho pisze:
> > you can see phoronix benchmark
> >
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_boot_perf&num=1
>
> Fedora is not a daemon of speed, but the speed is purpose-dependent.
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Yeah, I agree, but after going trough the article I cannot pass by in
silence the fact that while in Fedora 5 the disk maximum throughput was
29 MB/s in Rawhide it's only 8 MB/s which is nearly 4x less...

Martin
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:06 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org