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 04-03-2008, 06:34 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default very common kernel modules slow down the boot process

On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 21:53 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >> correct… seems to be started by NM / dbus according to the bootchart…
> >
> > This *should* be in the background and not actually be delaying the boot.
> >
> > Bill
> >
>
> The point is: Why is it started anyway? I have *no* wireless! No need to eat disk/CPU resources (which *is*
> delaying the boot).

On a tangent issue: I have machines which do not have USB, rsp. which
have USB disabled in BIOS.

No need to eat RAM and CPU cycles for builtin USB kernel modules just
for the sake of a couple of seconds speedup in booting [1]

Ralf

[1] One of these machines is an ancient i586. On this machine, RAM is
such kind of tight (64MB), any spared memory is valuable. More built-in
kernel modules probably will mean the death of Fedora on this class of
machines.



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-03-2008, 07:04 AM
Andrew Farris
 
Default very common kernel modules slow down the boot process

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

[1] One of these machines is an ancient i586. On this machine, RAM is
such kind of tight (64MB), any spared memory is valuable. More built-in
kernel modules probably will mean the death of Fedora on this class of
machines.


I would have thought it already got there.. 64Mb wow?

--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0x8300BF29 fingerprint 071D FFE0 4CBC 13FC 7DEB 5BD5 5F89 8E1B 8300 BF29
revoked key 0xC99B1DF3 no longer used
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 04-03-2008, 07:09 AM
Konrad Meyer
 
Default very common kernel modules slow down the boot process

Quoth Andrew Farris:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > [1] One of these machines is an ancient i586. On this machine, RAM is
> > such kind of tight (64MB), any spared memory is valuable. More built-in
> > kernel modules probably will mean the death of Fedora on this class of
> > machines.
>
> I would have thought it already got there.. 64Mb wow?

I have a i586 with 128M of ram running Fedora 8. It doesn't run X, but it
works great as a low-capacity web/dhcp/etc server and router.

--
Konrad Meyer <konrad@tylerc.org>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-03-2008, 12:41 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default very common kernel modules slow down the boot process

Konrad Meyer wrote:

Quoth Andrew Farris:

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

[1] One of these machines is an ancient i586. On this machine, RAM is
such kind of tight (64MB), any spared memory is valuable. More built-in
kernel modules probably will mean the death of Fedora on this class of
machines.

I would have thought it already got there.. 64Mb wow?


I have a i586 with 128M of ram running Fedora 8. It doesn't run X, but it
works great as a low-capacity web/dhcp/etc server and router.


Do these older/limited machines do anything better now than they did in
the 2.4 kernel days?


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-03-2008, 02:00 PM
William Cohen
 
Default very common kernel modules slow down the boot process

Jon Masters wrote:

On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 00:23 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:

<snip comments about time taken in modprobe>


Almost certainly a lot of it will be spent in parsing /lib/modules/$ver/modules.dep
Will Cohen did some experiments by sorting that file so that all the modules that
he had loaded were at the top of the file. I forget the exact numbers, but
it made a noticable difference.


Here is a pointer to the previous measurements:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/systemtap/2007-q1/msg00140.html

It was a couple second seconds, 1:07 vs 1:05 for boot time for a rawhide image
mid Jan 2007.


-Will


All I ever heard was that the maximum difference on boot time was a few
seconds, and given the number of calls to modprobe being made by udev, I
never really considered this a big problem. Kay didn't either because he
built a udev with a minimal modprobe in it and found little difference.


I suspect that if modules.dep was sorted and indexed, that lookups could be
made a lot faster than they are now.


However, this is probably worth doing. I'm also willing to consider the
modprobed idea, though I think it'll be more useful to simply make
modprobe part of a library that udev can simply link in directly. I'll
start poking at the former idea (sorting modules.dep and indexing)
first. Incidentally, in fact, we already sort those output files in
RHEL, but that's more of a temporarily hack to make the loading order
predictable when two conflicting PCI IDs are listed in those meta data.

On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 15:12 -0400, Bill Notting wrote:


Kay started poking at integrating modprobe directly into udev with the
idea of solving some of this... IIRC it didn't help.


Yeah. It didn't. I'm all ears with regard to suggestions on ways to
improve boot time, but let's first make sure we're 100% convinced where
those problems are. Meanwhile, I'll take Dave's comments on board.

Jon.




--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-03-2008, 02:04 PM
Dave Jones
 
Default very common kernel modules slow down the boot process

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 07:41:04AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Konrad Meyer wrote:
> > Quoth Andrew Farris:
> >> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>> [1] One of these machines is an ancient i586. On this machine, RAM is
> >>> such kind of tight (64MB), any spared memory is valuable. More built-in
> >>> kernel modules probably will mean the death of Fedora on this class of
> >>> machines.
> >> I would have thought it already got there.. 64Mb wow?
> >
> > I have a i586 with 128M of ram running Fedora 8. It doesn't run X, but it
> > works great as a low-capacity web/dhcp/etc server and router.
>
> Do these older/limited machines do anything better now than they did in
> the 2.4 kernel days?

Good luck trying to get the installer to run on anything less than 512MB these days.

Dave

--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-03-2008, 02:06 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default very common kernel modules slow down the boot process

On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 10:04 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> Good luck trying to get the installer to run on anything less than
> 512MB these days.

Runs on the 256 meg PS3 for me just fine. Text mode of course, and
using netinst.iso (which has stage2 on it so that I'm not sucking stage2
and stuffing it into ram).

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-03-2008, 02:11 PM
Konrad Meyer
 
Default very common kernel modules slow down the boot process

Quoth Dave Jones:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 07:41:04AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > Konrad Meyer wrote:
> > > Quoth Andrew Farris:
> > >> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > >>> [1] One of these machines is an ancient i586. On this machine, RAM is
> > >>> such kind of tight (64MB), any spared memory is valuable. More
built-in
> > >>> kernel modules probably will mean the death of Fedora on this class
of
> > >>> machines.
> > >> I would have thought it already got there.. 64Mb wow?
> > >
> > > I have a i586 with 128M of ram running Fedora 8. It doesn't run X, but
it
> > > works great as a low-capacity web/dhcp/etc server and router.
> >
> > Do these older/limited machines do anything better now than they did in
> > the 2.4 kernel days?
>
> Good luck trying to get the installer to run on anything less than 512MB
these days.
>
> Dave

I installed FC5 via SLINKY and have done live upgrades since.

Regards,
--
Konrad Meyer <konrad@tylerc.org>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-03-2008, 02:18 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default very common kernel modules slow down the boot process

On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 10:04 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 07:41:04AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > Konrad Meyer wrote:
> > > Quoth Andrew Farris:
> > >> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > >>> [1] One of these machines is an ancient i586. On this machine, RAM is
> > >>> such kind of tight (64MB), any spared memory is valuable. More built-in
> > >>> kernel modules probably will mean the death of Fedora on this class of
> > >>> machines.
> > >> I would have thought it already got there.. 64Mb wow?
> > >
> > > I have a i586 with 128M of ram running Fedora 8. It doesn't run X, but it
> > > works great as a low-capacity web/dhcp/etc server and router.
> >
> > Do these older/limited machines do anything better now than they did in
> > the 2.4 kernel days?
>
> Good luck trying to get the installer to run on anything less than 512MB these days.
512MB? Has Fedora's installation requirements become this kind of poor?

But correct, installing Fedora on low memory systems has always been a
PITA. Things have gotten worse with every release.

However, apart from i586 specific bugs tending to not to receive much
(any?) attention and tending to remain open for years, running and
updating/upgrading such systems so far has always been possible.

Actually, my old i586 system works quite smoothly with FC8 and better it
did with some older Fedoras.

Ralf


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-03-2008, 02:22 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default very common kernel modules slow down the boot process

On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 07:11 -0700, Konrad Meyer wrote:
> Quoth Dave Jones:

> > Good luck trying to get the installer to run on anything less than 512MB
> these days.
> >
> > Dave
>
> I installed FC5 via SLINKY and have done live upgrades since.

With my i586, I moved the HD to a better machine (no USB nor CD/DVDROM)
and installed Fedora (FC5 or FC6, I don't recall) there.
Upgrades since then, also.

Currently runs FC8 (runlevel 3, no GUI).

Ralf


--
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 07:45 PM.

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