| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica)Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica)Posted Jun 12, 2009 16:28 UTC (Fri) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)In reply to: Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica) by james_w Parent article: Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica)
"The budget is to get to a clean image of the default Ubuntu desktop."
I thought the budget was to an idle desktop.. idle disk..idle cpu. idle disk and idle cpu is slightly more aggressive than "get to a".
I can use a desktop that is still churning disk and cpu rendering file thumbnail images sitting on the Desktop. But that's not an idle target.
Does "clean" have a specific meaning in the context of the stated "idle" desktop that needs to be explicitly defined? Because its not used in the announcement email.
"The default desktop is useful"
You missed the main point I was trying to make. How long does a default "clean" desktop.. stay "clean" when its actually in use? Even when someone does not change any settings. Does having a list of "Recent Documents" significantly degrade the speed of the GNOME panel loading? If Ubuntu is still pointing xdg download directory to the desktop, does having things like thumbnail images to render of downloaded files severely degrade bootup? It's not just about the first boot after a fresh install. It's about the consistency of boot times when the user has made absolutely no settings changes. I think in particular the Desktop as download directory xdg setting that Ubuntu carries will make it difficult for that 4 second "idle" desktop budget into the Gnome desktop to be achievable outside of the very special conditions of a fresh desktop that has seen little or no internet usage.
-jef
(Log in to post comments)
Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica) Posted Jun 12, 2009 17:12 UTC (Fri) by james_w (subscriber, #51167) [Link]
> Does "clean" have a specific meaning in the context of the stated "idle"
> desktop that needs to be explicitly defined? Because its not used in the > announcement email.
By clean I meant "fresh install".
> You missed the main point I was trying to make.
No, I chose to take a shot at your wording. After that sentence I spoke to the rest of your concerns.
> I think in particular the Desktop as download directory xdg setting that
As I said, the budgets are for a fresh install on the target platform. The aim is not to ensure that every Ubuntu desktop on every system loads in 4 seconds, as great as that would be.
> Does having a list of "Recent Documents" significantly degrade the speed
If they do then we should look at fixing them.
Trying to provide a good base on which we can build doesn't mean that we won't try and fix other issues. We don't have to fix all performance issues in order to get some benefit.
The 10s target is a known state, a fresh install, on a single platform for consistency, so that it is easily repeatable. Once that is done it might be nice to have secondary targets that provide more "real world" setups. It's easy for anyone to profile their particular sequence and help to trim the fat though, so you don't need the same control over the platform and image, and time targets aren't useful, they are essentially arbitrary anyway.
Thanks,
James
|
|
||||||||||||