In an email to developers of the Linux distribution Ubuntu, Canonical's Scott James Remnant explained how they hope to achieve a 10 second boot time with Ubuntu 10.04, the version to be released in 2010, after 9.10 is released this fall. The projected speed improvements come with changes to the kernel, such as making the X.org server, which controls the display elements in Linux, load up quicker. The boot process will divided into sections with time budgets: two seconds for Kernal and initramfs, Plumbing (drive loader), and X.org server; and four seconds for the desktop session and other services.
"This benchmark time is to a fully logged in desktop (auto-login) with an idle CPU and Disk. Deferring services is not an option unless done properly," Remnant wrote.
The reference platform that Canonical plans to use for this target is a Dell Mini 9 netbook, equipped with the typical Atom processor and an SSD hard drive. Remnant feels this is a good benchmark because it represents what he calls a "middle of the road" system and that some will be faster and slower, but the low price of the machine allows other developers around the world to purchase one to perform their own testing while helping to contribute to the goal.
"10s is a good number, especially for a generic, hardware agnostic, non-stripped down Linux distribution," Remnant wrote, "from that starting point, development teams will be able to customise and tailor Ubuntu for specific hardware - and the OEM team will be able to produce custom remixes of Ubuntu that boot even faster."
Remnant also said that a side-effect of the fast boot speed is that there will be no splash screen. He also said that the team is working to reduce the boot time in 9.10 (codenamed Karmic) but users should not expect the near instant boot they hope to hit with the next release.
Ubuntu already is known for having a quick boot time, as one user proved by back in April. He was able to install Ubuntu 9.04 RC on a system equipped with a speedy Intel SSD drive inside an IBM ThinkPad. When formatted in the ext4 file system, he was able to boot the system in 7.83 seconds. These additional speed improvement that Canonical is targeting for the upcoming Ubunutu release is a feature that Linux enthusiasts should be proud of.
Download: Fast Boot PresentationNeowin member Executor89 contributed to this report.
Edit: Nvm, looks like Plymouth wont be in Ubuntu 9.10:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzI5NQ
Too many people look at when it shows a desktop, regardless of how much extra work (and processing) is taking up resources from potential user tasks.
I like their approach to measuring "real" boot time!
10 second Ubuntu with alternative programs that tries to mimic popular Windows programs, running selected Windows programs through slow Wine, and playing Windows games with poor driver support through slow Wine?
or
20 second Windows 7 with sweet features, and compatibility with legacy era programs and DX 11 games?
I have preferred Linux over Windows for quite some time now, thank you
Linux was and is never a replacement for Windows. It is something completely different
A 10s boot time is a nice feat and I'll look forward to running a side version of Ubuntu.
As to the troll, keep yourself caged at night.
10 second Ubuntu with alternative programs that tries to mimic popular Windows programs, running selected Windows programs through slow Wine, and playing Windows games with poor driver support through slow Wine?
or
20 second Windows 7 with sweet features, and compatibility with legacy era programs and DX 11 games?
You also forgot Antivirus/Mallware/Spyware features with Windows 7.
10 second Ubuntu with alternative programs that tries to mimic popular Windows programs, running selected Windows programs through slow Wine, and playing Windows games with poor driver support through slow Wine?
or
20 second Windows 7 with sweet features, and compatibility with legacy era programs and DX 11 games?
You also forgot Antivirus/Mallware/Spyware features with Windows 7.
If you still get viruses, spyware and malware on your pc, you are a retard and deserve linux or apple
+1
True dat
10 second Ubuntu with alternative programs that tries to mimic popular Windows programs, running selected Windows programs through slow Wine, and playing Windows games with poor driver support through slow Wine?
or
20 second Windows 7 with sweet features, and compatibility with legacy era programs and DX 11 games?
This is an ad hominem argument... :p
Nothing in this article says that Linux is better for gaming.
That's a very uncommon statement actually, even from the Linux fans themselves.
a) Linux user puts up with 10 second boot
or
b) Linux user puts up with longer boot.
I fail to see how Windows really comes into this? If people prefer the OS then a slightly quicker boot won't sway them likely anyway. It's still a big plus to linux (well Ubuntu) users.
a) Linux user puts up with 10 second boot
or
b) Linux user puts up with longer boot.
I fail to see how Windows really comes into this? If people prefer the OS then a slightly quicker boot won't sway them likely anyway. It's still a big plus to linux (well Ubuntu) users.
BINGO!
If your not interested in the article then don't bother reading it or replying ya damn troll, you give us windows users a bad name.
If the only thing you do with your computer is suft the web, get mails, update your blog and talk to friends using an IM then Linux will do this just fine.
I don't understand people who are ready to rificulize themself to promote Windows and MS.
Don't get me wrong i like Windows. I'm running a full boxed retail version of Vista Home Premium. I don't even have a Linux machine at home. Lately the only time i use Linux is when i need to log in one of our servers at job (command line of course). I'm a gamer so i use Windows.
But seriously before saying stupid uninformed things about Linux try it before. It's a nice OS if you don't play games.
Some apps for it are awesome like Quanta. I really really would like to see the open source version of Quanta ported to Windows.
As long as you don't game Linux gets the job done. A girl at my job runs it and she knows **** about computer. She did not want to pay for Windows XP.
Ummm... Linux is a whole community. Other teams are working to improve the kernel. Others to improve Gnome. See where I am going?
This is a good thing. Nice to know that br0adband doesn't care, but there are many that do, and what br0adband thinks doesn't matter to them.
Keep your XP, if it makes you happy.
Cheers!
Ok, well you go do that.
I am doing that.
It's a valid opinion, no need to get all defensive, no one said your OS sucks you know?
It's a valid opinion, no need to get all defensive, no one said your OS sucks you know?
I think the point is that it's also no disadvantage, and it would give it a competitive edge over other operating systems at least in this area. While they're working on this, other teams are constantly working on improving other areas.
It's a valid opinion, no need to get all defensive, no one said your OS sucks you know?
I think the point is that it's also no disadvantage, and it would give it a competitive edge over other operating systems at least in this area. While they're working on this, other teams are constantly working on improving other areas.
And I agree, it's nice to see. But they could've just come out and said it like you did, and it would've been the end of it, instead of falling back into what I can only call "fan protection mode".
and do you miss to going green?.
Seriously who cares, I shut down my Ubuntu PC once a year, and don't even use Standby.
I would imagine that many of the improvements planned would benefit all configurations of *buntu.
And, if you run your server without X, you may already hit the 10 second mark.
What idiot would use ubuntu on his server who runs important sites?
I don't get your question. If you're constantly shutting down and rebooting a server, you're doing it wrong.
Ubuntu has a specialized server edition. And Linux/BSD is perfectly capable of safely running a server.
Have you seen any serious sites using Ubuntu? Everyone is on RedHat/CentOS and so do I. Not saying that it is band or anything but there are so much better solutions out there.
Wikipedia runs on Ubuntu.
It's non profit.
And your point? You asked about important sites that run on Ubuntu, and I'd say that Wikipedia qualifies.
What does that have to do with it?
WTF? And that has what to do with it exactly? 400+ servers, over 680 million visitors a year? That not important?
Important = money making machine = owned by a company = not donations or whatever site which doesn't care about that.
Important = money making machine? Really? and you also think Wikipedia is not important? Have a look at the case studies from canonical: http://www.ubuntu.com/products/casestudies.
May I ask why you think RHEL or CentOS is a better solution than Ubuntu Server or did you mean other solutions as in 'windows server'?
HE.net runs Ubuntu. That's an extremely important backbone provider. Right?
Always nice to have set out goals that get into the releases which are exciting (at least to some people anyway).
Really impressed with 7's boot time, even with my usual work crap installed. Almost as quick as my MBP/OSX.
they're not just "packing" the programs, they also modify them, just like most distros.
My Blag and Zenwalk already don't take much more than that on old 1.5 to 2ghz cpu's.
Sorry but it's something special.
I have a 10 000 rpm hard disk with 2GB of ram and it takes ages for XP to boot. Vista is faster but still takes more than 10 secondes before the hard disk becomes iddle.
Truly, "suspend" is anything but economic, "always on" is so-so, and hibernate is damn slow (and unstable) with over 2gb of ram.
I tend to multiboot so really anything under 30 seconds is wonderful.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.