*Nix Boot Times

nick@nick-MS-7817:~$ sudo systemd-analyze
[sudo] password for nick:
Startup finished in 13.560s (firmware) + 3.914s (loader) + 1.482s (kernel) + 8.604s (userspace) = 27.561s
 

nick@nick-MS-7817:~$ sudo systemd-analyze
[sudo] password for nick:
Startup finished in 13.560s (firmware) + 3.914s (loader) + 1.482s (kernel) + 8.604s (userspace) = 27.561s
 

 

I'd say that sounds about right for your hardware, etc. As Al pointed out a few posts back, though, after logging in the desktop still has to load, network has to establish a connection, etc, etc. When I say 40-50 seconds to 'ready-to-go' in my Pups, that's exactly what I mean; everything is loaded, set-up, and  ready to go... 

 

Which I'm quite happy with..!

 

 

Mike. 

Edited by Mike_Walsh, 20 September 2016 - 06:25 PM.

 

nick@nick-MS-7817:~$ sudo systemd-analyze
[sudo] password for nick:
Startup finished in 13.560s (firmware) + 3.914s (loader) + 1.482s (kernel) + 8.604s (userspace) = 27.561s
 

 

I'd say that sounds about right for your hardware, etc. As Al pointed out a few posts back, though, after logging in the desktop still has to load, network has to establish a connection, etc, etc. When I say 40-50 seconds to 'ready-to-go' in my Pups, that's exactly what I mean; everything is loaded, set-up, and  ready to go... 

 

Which I'm quite happy with..!

 

 

Mike. 

 

im not sure why people keep doubting what i say, it seems like every post i make someone has to doubt and counter it in ANYWAY possible. even with proof, "i must be doing something wrong"

 

here it is AGAIN:

 

Edited by Viper_Security, 20 September 2016 - 06:57 PM.

It looks like Mint and Ubuntu handle boot time reporting differently,

 

This is my output.

nick@nick-MS-7817:~$ sudo systemd-analyze
[sudo] password for nick:
Startup finished in 13.560s (firmware) + 3.914s (loader) + 1.482s (kernel) + 8.604s (userspace) = 27.561s

And this is yours.

vip3r@vip3r-M1530 ~ $ sudo systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 3.894s (kernel) + 2.053s (userspace) = 5.948s

It looks like Mint is not reporting firmware and loader times like Ubuntu is.

Viper_Security, out of curiosity, are you using EasyBCD 2.2 or 2.3 to control the booting?

 

Because I'm getting not as fast, though similar report of the command. 

 

 

cat@cat-ASRockPro3 ~ $ sudo systemd-analyze

Startup finished in 3.466s (kernel) + 10.904s (userspace) = 14.370s

 

Note that this is on the slowest, and oldest, SSD I own, a 2011 model 128GiB Crucial m4. I don't have a standalone Linux PC, though can check that of my wife's, where the dual boot isn't setup that way (with EasyBCD), rather native Grub boot to make it simple for her. The only issue may be that it's a SATA-2 based notebook.

 

EDIT: The command doesn't run on hers, may be to do with the dual booting with W10 Pro (my side of the notebook).

 

Still boots fast though, yet I've never seen any PC fully boot through the UEFI/BIOS though signing in, in under 5 seconds, this would be assuming no password, I'd be wasting another 4-5 seconds typing in mine (maybe why my 'userspace' shows 10.904s).

 

Cat

Edited by cat1092, 21 September 2016 - 02:09 AM.

Not sure which version of EasyBCD im using, whatever linux mint 18 uses. and i just started up my lappy and ran systemd and here it is:

 

Whether or not systemd-analyze reports firmware and loader times, seems to depend on the hardware. Here are the outputs for Mint 18 Cinnamon and Ubuntu 16.04 on my desktop pc (which I saved to file earlier). Both Mint and Ubuntu are set to automatic log-in for the purpose of this test.
 

al@my-desktop-pc:~$ cat /media/al/Mint/home/al/mint_startup 
Startup finished in 9.719s (kernel) + 13.850s (userspace) = 23.569s

al@my-desktop-pc:~$ cat /media/al/Ubuntu/home/al/ubuntu_startup 
Startup finished in 7.122s (kernel) + 18.625s (userspace) = 25.748s

Re other points raised in the thread: The command "systemd-analyze" will only work on the newer operating systems that have systemd. If the command doesn't work, you won't have systemd.

Mint doesn't come with EasyBCD, so if you didn't install it separately you won't have it.

Edited by Al1000, 21 September 2016 - 03:36 PM.

vip3r@vip3r-M1530 ~ $ sudo systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 3.894s (kernel) + 2.053s (userspace) = 5.948s

 
 

...and i just started up my lappy and ran systemd and here it is:

vip3r@vip3r-M1530 ~ $ sudo systemd-analyze
[sudo] password for vip3r: 
Startup finished in 3.837s (kernel) + 3.175s (userspace) = 7.012s
vip3r@vip3r-M1530 ~ $

Interesting that on everyone else's computers, who have run systemd-analyze in this thread and posted times, that userspace takes quite a bit longer than kernel to load. Whereas on both of your computers, userspace loads faster than kernel.

Yeah i noticed that as well, not exactly sure why. 

Interesting that on everyone else's computers, who have run systemd-analyze in this thread and posted times, that userspace takes quite a bit longer than kernel to load. Whereas on both of your computers, userspace loads faster than kernel.

Hmm!

user@debian:~$ sudo systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 20.885s (kernel) + 5.557s (userspace) = 26.442s

HDD frugal install, BIOS, grub4dos (menu.lst) boots initrd, vmlinuz, which loads filesystem.squashfs (lzo level 1 compressed filesystem on the same ext3 partition as the save (persistence) area and grub4dos/menu.lst). With changes preserved in memory (script to flush them to disk if I want to make them persist across reboots).

I chose lzo level 1 as measurements indicated that to be the best trade off, around half as much IO (compressed), 4 cores decompressing that at 400MB/core = faster than disk IO of non compressed (twice as much IO).

Perhaps those differences in timings are down to IO and/or pre-processing (reading the inodes of the large (1.9GB) squashed filesystem).

Just guessing.

Edited by rufwoof, 21 September 2016 - 06:39 PM.

If your userspace is loading faster than the kernel because of your set-up, that wouldn't explain why Viper_Security's timings are the same in that respect.

If your userspace is loading faster than the kernel because of your set-up, that wouldn't explain why Viper_Security's timings are the same in that respect.

agreed, and i've ran systemd-analyze 3 times (one after each start up to test) and all 3 are +/-   1-2 seconds.

 

not EXACTLY sure why because this isn't the best nor the fastest comp in the world but theoretically the towers should boot faster (with many factors of course)

I wonder if all this has anything to do with the way Linux is installed,

My Ubuntu is installed in UEFI mode.

not EXACTLY sure why because this isn't the best nor the fastest comp in the world but theoretically the towers should boot faster (with many factors of course)

Are you still talking about the XPS M1530 because it;s not clear to me?  Mint18 on one and arch on another?  Both are laptops it seems?  If I'd started a technical Thread I would include all these things just for comparison, and probably at the start.

 

I don't think it's correct to not include all factors, wouldn't it be all system components that would be factored in?

 

The XPS should be quite fast with one of these modern linux OS's on it, after all...it is one of there best albeit a little old.  And it's a gaming laptop also, so I'd assume it to be quite fast even for a lappy. 

 

1. What about the BIOS, that might be a factor also right: suggestions very welcome!  I couldn't find much via google about this, except for changing some settings and Maybe a BIOS flash for some older models.  It seems to me that the BIOS would be a big part of the Boot Times.

 

2. What about the CPU?:  Even in my limited experience the CPU is always the weaker link, as opposed to RAM especially discussing Boot Times.  I'll bet the CPU is maxed out at Boot No?

 

3. Distro has got to be a factor also right?

 

4. As Nick suggested, perhaps Install Procedure is a part also?

 

5. Boot Order was also mentioned in one article.  Even if Booting to the HD, if it is set to boot from Disk or USB, it will take a little more time skipping over those choices.

 

This is not the best article because it is quite old -2010- but just did a quick search and found it a bit interesting.  This one thing I didn't know, and had been wondering for a while about HDD Speeds in rpm.  I think this will answer one of Viper's questions also, about 5400 and 7200 drive speeds.  The speeds I posted were from a 7200rpm HDD and maybe that is why it Boots so darn slow.  This seems to be from some good sources, from Phoenix and Intel:

 

"Doran: The faster your hard drive, the longer it takes to spin it up from a standing start. 7200 [rpm] takes longer than 5400. Changing that hardware can make a significant difference. It's around five seconds for a 7200-rpm drive to come up to speed. Obviously, an SSD can be a big contributor there. It takes virtually no time."

https://www.cnet.com/news/getting-a-windows-pc-to-boot-in-under-10-seconds/

 

Okay, just some ideas I had, hope to see what others think of them.

Edited by pcpunk, 21 September 2016 - 08:48 PM.

i did NOT exclude ANY factors haha. and yes its still the XPS i  cannot afford a new one atm. i said "With many factors of course"

 

and i AM using a solid state drive.

 

arch was installed on my ACER not the XPS (i wiped and did clean install of mint 18)