I have intentionally disclosed the limitations of my methodology. You are welcome to reproduce this test in a more rigorous environment - that's the point, after all, that it's now practical to do such tests :)
Posted Nov 27, 2012 4:22 UTC (Tue) by airlied (subscriber, #9104)
[Link]
well you've tested both of them barely booting anything, found systemd to be faster, but then say its not because of the shells. But if you are only booting a bare minimum, surely the shell impact will grow as the more services you start.
seems like a flaw in your own logic.
Some changes needed...
Posted Nov 27, 2012 4:37 UTC (Tue) by s0f4r (subscriber, #52284)
[Link]
I think it's important - you've done significant work towards a hypothesis (I assume you want to demonstrate that one of the inits is the better), but fail to make a complete case - and stopped point blank where things get interested.
I'm personally interested in the comparison, but working fulltime on enabling systemd user sessions, and developing my bootchart version, and not working on any debian-based distro - so it's unlikely I'll be able to spend time with your work myself.
Also, posting raw data (which what my bootchart version does implicitly, as the SVG files it creates contain the raw data) is an important step in posting results. This will allow others to compare, verify your results.
Was this really the point?
Posted Nov 27, 2012 9:50 UTC (Tue) by gevaerts (subscriber, #21521)
[Link]
The way I read it, the main point was to tell the world that things now work, and although the part about benchmarking was longer I took it as being secondary, and mainly meant as a starting point for later work (presumably by other people), which is why the benchmarks being for a minimal system and the raw data missing didn't seem very important to me.