Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Stats Ubuntu Linux

Ubuntu 11.10 Down To 12-Second Boot 221

Posted by Soulskill
from the faster-than-a-speeding-ocelot dept.
deadeyefred writes "Even though it's still only in alpha, it appears as though the forthcoming version of Ubuntu, version 11.10, will be much faster than earlier versions, according to this story. Quoting: 'After installing the OS onto a PC with an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 at 3.00 GHz and a hard disk drive, we stop-watched boot-up time at 12 seconds — more than three seconds faster than the previous best time we’ve measured.' It looks as if the switch from GDM to LightDM will have a significant impact as Ubuntu gets closer to 'instant on' status."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubuntu 11.10 Down To 12-Second Boot

Comments Filter:
  • by NFN_NLN (633283) on Monday July 25, 2011 @05:52PM (#36876344)

    I wonder what the boot time would be with SSDs?

    • Re:HDD -- SSD (Score:4, Informative)

      by zonky (1153039) on Monday July 25, 2011 @05:56PM (#36876392)
      I have a HP Probook 5320m with SSD, with Full Disk Encryption (dmcrypt) running 11.04 x64. After entering my FDE keyphrase, i am at login window in around 3-4 seconds.
    • by krray (605395)

      You'll spend more time in the POST than you will booting the OS up...

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by hairyfeet (841228)

        Hell I think that is SOP with all OSes these days. Windows 7 optimizes files for boot performance, although rankly hybrid sleep has gotten so good I tell customers don't even bother with shutdown unless prompted for a reboot for some reason, just put her to sleep, Apple has always had excellent sleep from what I've been told, and now Ubuntu has 12 second boots.

        But to me the problem with Linux was never boot or resource usage, both were usually great, but the drivers being borked all the time. When is Canoni

        • by Thing 1 (178996)
          Not to affront the gods of XKCD, but: every time I see John Stuart, he's smooth. (Typo is a reference to an old episode where he got a book signed with his typoed name; Jon Stewart, Daily Show, for search engines and posterity/fart jokes.)
      • by imbaczek (690596)
        FYI: already the case in 11.04
    • Well, I'm running Ubuntu 10.10 on an SSD. The boot time is subdivided as follows:

      1) ~10 seconds for the BIOS to load and start grub
      2) ~10 seconds for Ubuntu to get to the login screen
      2.5) Optional 2 hour wait if Ubuntu decides to fsck all partitions again
      3) Upon login, ~30 second wait while the Nvidia driver try to configure the HDMI video.

      Overall, I can just about live with it. Unfortunately though, hibernate and suspend no longer work, so things could be a lot better.

      • by WillKemp (1338605)

        2.5) Optional 2 hour wait if Ubuntu decides to fsck all partitions again

        It's not "ubuntu" that decides, it's the file system. You can stop it happening by setting the number of times the file system can be mounted before checking to 0 with tune2fs. For example:

        tune2fs -c 0 /dev/sda1

      • by ace123 (758107)

        Make sure you're using EXT4 for your filesystem... it's really simple to upgrade, and you can basically change /etc/fstab, and optionally run some tune2fs parameters to enable extents if you are happy with making it permanent.

        Just changing fstab to say "ext4" instead of "ext3" alone cuts fsck time by about a factor of 10 (but make sure your version of grub supports ext4 before turning on extents). My 900GB ext4 raid partition will fsck in roughly the same amount of time as my 20GB ext3 root partition

  • does this include the bootloader?

    Grub?
    Lilo?

    • by Dyinobal (1427207)
      No one really uses Lilo any more really. Grub is a much more robust system and versatile. I don't see any mention of if it was from pressing the start button or from the boot loader loading up. I'm willing to believe that it's from pressing the on button rather than from the boot loader loading.
      • So, you're saying that no one really uses Slackware?

        Really?

        I must be no one.

        cheers,

        • by ace123 (758107)

          Saying Slackware doesn't support GRUB is like saying Dell doesn't support Linux. It's a bootloader, and aside from installing it, it's completely unrelated to the OS. They probably kept LILO as the default since it's works easily out of the box.

          Just grab a copy of grub2, make, make install, install it to the bootloader, and set up a linux64 menu.lst to load into your OS. Unlike LILO, you can actually type in commands at the boot prompt and tab complete to get a list of OS's, so it's kind of hard to mess up

          • Did someone say that Slackware didn't support grub? Where?

            Rather, someone suggested that "no one really uses lilo." This is far from the truth.

            Let's make up something else:
            No one in this thread is lacking reading comprehension.

            cheers,

  • How many people actually reboot their Linux systems? I guess if you're on a laptop you might sometimes, but I just use Sleep functionality instead of cycles.

    Still, a good (even if by now esoteric) achievement.

    • by tepples (727027)

      How many people actually reboot their Linux systems?

      Anybody who applies a kernel update, now that Oracle has acquired Ksplice.

      I guess if you're on a laptop you might sometimes, but I just use Sleep functionality instead of cycles.

      My Dell Mini 10 runs Ubuntu 11.04. Leaving it in sleep for a couple days will fully drain the battery. So if I know I'm not going to be near a charger for several hours, I shut it down.

      • by andydread (758754)
        oooh noooos. Oracle acquired Ksplice? Oh well look for Oracle to sue the pants of anyone for implementing any such open source version of that feature in Linux within the next 20 years :-(
      • by growse (928427)
        Post to undo mistaken mod. Doh.
        • by Nethead (1563)

          That's honorable! I usually just leave them wondering about the mod.

        • by Thing 1 (178996)

          Hi, I've found that in most menuing systems (Windows XP primarily, although I use Ubuntu exclusively at home and it works similarly), if you left-click the "menu button" to open the menu, and then left-click and drag on the menu, you'll end up choosing a menu item much more often than if you left-click to open the menu, then move the mouse, then left-click again.

          I've found that often (30%?) when I do the latter, I'll end up clicking outside of the menu, and possibly causing a side-effect. Whereas, if I lef

      • I wasn't aware that Oracle had bought up Ksplice. That bites . . .

    • You must be a GNOME guy.
    • by grumling (94709)

      I never used to, opting for sleep mode instead of shutdown. Now that I have SSDs I am able to use hibernate and get it to power back about as fast as sleep mode. Hibernate is basically shutdown with a ram image stored on the drive.

      • Still not a shutdown since you don't need to re-open your documents, restart any services, unmount drives, etc. Hibernate is a LOT closer to suspend than shutdown.
    • I typically don't run the media PC hooked up to my TV unless I'm actually watching a movie or listening to music. Because of a hardware peculiarity, the power button won't put it into standby like my desktop PC. So I just leave it shut off unless I'm using it. It's got 10.04 on it now and boot time is about 30 seconds (never timed it, I usually turn it on and head to he kitchen for a drink). I'd love a fast boot time.

      -B
    • Re:Boot times? (Score:4, Informative)

      by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Monday July 25, 2011 @06:31PM (#36876824)

      i get a 'restart your computer' message every other update.

    • by cuby (832037)
      I shutdown my laptops a lot.
      Hibernate takes forever to recover (I don't run only firefox...), so I don't use it.
      Slep is Ok but for 2 or 3 times I forgot a laptop for several days and the battery got completely dead. Needless to say that its charge capacity is now around +-20%. Li-ion batteries should no be completely discharged.
      Now I think twice before using sleep.
      (I use Ubuntu)
    • How many people actually reboot their Linux systems?

      Probably at least a few more when this rolls out and sleep instead of shutdown only saves 12 seconds.

      • That 12 seconds does not include restarting all your applications, typing in ssh agent passwords, and all the other foo required to resume your normal working environment.

    • My laptop gets rebooted quite frequently due to dual-boot (games), but my server has been up for 153 days now (about 5 months). They both run arch.

      I can't believe ubuntu still takes that long. My laptop automatically starts apache, mysql, and a bunch of other services (I do web development on it) at startup and I'd be surprised if it took 10 seconds (not counting POST and grub timeouts).
    • My Linux machine is used as a home desktop machine, so when I go to bed, I turn it off. So for me, I boot Linux once a day. I'd care about Uptime if I were serving something, but I don't.
  • ...a PC with an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 at 3.00 GHz and a hard disk drive...

    Well, that's a specific Intel CPU, and we know it has an unspecified hard drive.

    What actual hardware did they use, so that we can reproduce their results?

    Thanks,
    -- Terry

  • When the heck did you start that timer? Bios on many computers takes 5 to 15 seconds. Starting after post I can (and do) boot XP on a 1.6 Ghz single core celeron with 1Gb ram in 20 seconds. By the same yardstick I would hardly call that "instant".
    • I have dual boot machine and only use Windows when I have to, Xp boots 40s for me (after boot screen). Although I have quite a lot programs installed (Virtuawin,Avast,uTorrent). On the other hand on Ubuntu I don't need antivirus, has multiple desktops by default and qtorrent loads pretty fast.
      Also, it seems that as the number of intsalled buy not daemon programs can slow down Windows by the high amount of registry entries. On Linux it doesn't matter how many programs you install.

  • by mewsenews (251487) on Monday July 25, 2011 @06:04PM (#36876502) Homepage
    but unity still sucks
    • 100% true. also, does anybody know of a distro that can be installed like wubi?

      • by Laser Dan (707106)

        100% true. also, does anybody know of a distro that can be installed like wubi?

        Linux Mint?

    • Re:cool (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RenHoek (101570) on Monday July 25, 2011 @06:38PM (#36876936) Homepage

      I hate Unity so much... I wiped the system and installed 10.04 again. I was perfectly happy with Gnome and the way things were set up.

      The problem, is that it's form trumping functionality. I hate Windows because they push 'features' onto you even if you don't want them. Microsoft knows what you want, and if you don't want it that way, it just means the problem must be you.

      The king of this trend is of course Apple, but then again they sell to a peculiar market anyway. It's like those people buy a car because it's pretty and do not even inquire about the mileage.

      Ubuntu was free of it, but now they are going the same way. They decide what you want, if you want it or not.

      • Re:cool (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:48PM (#36878444)

        I hate Unity so much... I wiped the system and installed 10.04 again.

        That's crazy overkill; Unity is just the _default_ shell. Choose "Ubuntu Classic" from your login manager, and you'll see the familiar Gnome interface.

    • by Sepodati (746220)

      Not for everyone. It works just fine for my family.

  • Heck, my computer takes more than 12 seconds to hand over to any OS... I mean, graphics card initialization, POST, initializing 3 RAID controllers.... probably at least 15-20 seconds before the OS gets a chance... I'm pretty sure every modern OS I've tried on my machine can boot to a functional desktop on a fresh install in less time than the BIOS takes...

    • by jon3k (691256)
      Not being snarky, honest question - why are you rebooting a machine with 3 raid controllers? I mean I understand maybe occasionally (once every few months?) but at that point who cares if it takes 5 minutes to boot up?
  • Why does Ubuntu get all the credit? Isn't this Debian's new system for running init scripts concurrently at work?

    • If you're referring to upstart, IIRC that was actually an Ubuntu (Canonical) project.
      • by XanC (644172)

        No, I wasn't; hadn't heard of Upstart. Debian does have a concurrent boot system, which is now the default in squeeze, but apparently this is an area where Debian and Ubuntu are doing their own things. I withdraw my original comment!

    • by Ant P. (974313)

      1: It isn't new, it's been in testing/unstable for 2 years by now. 2: This isn't Debian's init system, because this takes longer to get to a usable desktop on a 2011 3GHz multicore than that takes on my eee701 with a 630MHz Celeron.

  • I thought a major advantage of Linux was supposed to be that you only had to boot it once and then it ran forever...
    • Unless you use it as a desktop machine, and try to save power.

    • I thought a major advantage of Linux was supposed to be that you only had to boot it once and then it ran forever...

      A well deserved reputation. However there are such things as power interruptions, kernel upgrades, physical relocation of a workstation, hardware changes. My Shuttle SD11G5 running as a server (quiet enough for always-on in the home) has typical uptime of a few months.

      There is also kernel development in which boot time can easily dominate the development cycle, indirectly affecting kernel quality and hence every user.

  • by Sepultura (150245) on Monday July 25, 2011 @06:50PM (#36877126)

    That's about how long it took me with Unity before I gave it the boot too!

  • Now ubuntu can go from cold boot to crashing apps faster than windows! Ah, bug #1 will be solved any day now.

    P.S. Mint has been better since 9.04

  • I am glad to see the use of LightDM -- hopefully this reduction of bloat on the desktop will continue. It is not just a matter of boot times but also CPU & RAM usage. This might not seem important of a new top of the range machine, but is great when running on a netbook or a PC that is affordable in the 3rd world.

    One of the nice things about Linux was that it was lean & mean, then the desktop guys trashed that reputation.

    • by dudpixel (1429789)

      yes, until LightDM reaches feature parity with GDM at which point it will be labelled "bloated" and there will be a new EvenLighterDM project start up and so it goes on.

  • They are a retarded thing to try and 'show-off'. Who cares that it takes you 12 seconds to start doing something, when the system you load into can't even get past screwing things up release after release. Ubuntu needs to fix it's many recurring, regressions, and add some functionality to other wise lacking programs/code.
  • by saccade.com (771661) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:01PM (#36877992) Homepage Journal
    I'm always skeptical of these "Boots in N seconds!" claims. Because often it takes another few -minutes- to log in, launch an application, and start doing something useful. We need a new metric. Say, the time it takes from power on to fully loading an uncached copy of example.com in a browser.
    • by danomac (1032160)

      I agree. My BIOS on my htpc takes 15-20 seconds to post, then 12 seconds to boot into mythtv THEN xbmc for a frontend, and is ready to actually use - you can use the remote and select a recording to watch. Installed on a SSD.

    • A few minutes? That's the MS Windows (and possibly gnome or KDE) way where you can see the stuff you want to click on but can't touch it beacuse a pile of background tasks are still starting up. Apart from GUI elements (eg. gnome-panel) everything should be up by the time the login prompt is there and with most window managers it's only a second or two from login to usable desktop. It's not all that bad even with the panels but it's still a few seconds that probably could be trimmed off.
      My eeepc with the
    • by dudpixel (1429789)

      I dunno, KDE tends to login in about 5-10 seconds and you're usually ready to go straight away.

      Your claim of a few minutes is overstated.

    • by romco (61131)

      That would be

      Boot + Load Browser + Connect to Internet + Fetch Page

  • I'm looking forward to the first official-status release of Lubuntu as part of the Ubuntu family. I wonder what its boot time will be?
  • by BestNicksRTaken (582194) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @03:22AM (#36880732)

    I wonder how much development time has been wasted saving you 12 seconds per month?

    Development time that could have been used fixing Gnome3, PulseAudio, Systemd......

    • None whatsoever, because the people that hardcore into systems work probably wouldn't work on PulseAudio if you held them at gunpoint.

  • I've messed around with embedded ARM Linux boards from Technologic Systems. They claim sub-2.0 second boot times on most of their products. However, that's booting to Busybox. Okay, no big deal for an embedded system. But the big time hog is initializing the USB system. If you have devices plugged in on startup, I'm seeing boot times approaching 10 seconds.

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...