From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: Relocating files for faster boot/start-up on reiser(fs/4) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:59:32 -0500 Message-ID: <450BBCF4.7060506@slaphack.com> References: <200609131451.42474.lists@qutek.net> <200609151520.39826.lists@qutek.net> <450B28E6.90405@slaphack.com> <200609151801.09038.lists@qutek.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <200609151801.09038.lists@qutek.net> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Quinn Harris Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Quinn Harris wrote: > On Friday 15 September 2006 16:27, David Masover wrote: > >>> Not sure if I would be better of trying initng or waiting for upstart >>> (Ubuntus new init) to get scripts that actually parallel boot. The code >>> for upstart is very clean and it has the backing of a major distro, so I >>> have high hopes. >> Hmm. That sounds kind of cool, but I wonder how it compares to Gentoo's >> init scripts? I guess I'll have to wait till it hits the one Ubuntu box >> I have... > Gentoo default init doesn't paralize well. Not when compared to initng which > is realitivly easy to get to work on Gentoo. I'm not sure what initng is, but the way I paralize Gentoo is by setting a flag in /etc/conf.d/rc: RC_PARALLEL_STARTUP="yes" I still don't see a difference between initng and Gentoo's init. I guess I'd have to install them both. One thing I like about Gentoo's init is that they are still just shell scripts, and it would take a minimal amount of code to convert them to/from the old init style. > The Ubuntu people decided > initng wansn't powerfull enough (let alone the existing sysvinit). They > thought it needed a better way to define the bootup sequence during boot. In > addition to integrate running any task like ACPI events, hotplut, CRON into > one consistent tool. > http://www.netsplit.com/blog/work/canonical/upstart.html Aha, thanks. Getting offtopic here, but I don't see the comparison I'm looking for. I see why it's different than launchd -- mostly, that launchd provides no way of knowing whether we want to wait for a script to run or an app to start. But I don't know of a way to know when an app has finished starting, unless it daemonizes itself -- which makes it easy to write a script that ends when the app has started. I really don't see the usefulness of making that distinction as far as dependencies go. Finally read up on the "event-based system", and I suspect this kind of thing could probably be an extension to a dependency-based system. I guess we'll see if initng pulls that off. >> Wait... Python is more universal than Ruby of Ruby on Rails? > Both Gentoo and Ubuntu install Python by default but not Ruby. And more > people at least in the US are familiar with Python. Finally I might use > Python inotify code (to replace readahead-watch) and the Ruby version is a > bit alpha and I don't think availible in Gentoo or Ubuntu packages. Speaking of which, the Perl inotify is broken for me a bit lately, I need to figure out what's going on. Unfortunately, I don't know if it's perl or the kernel that's broken... > I don't know of anything Python does reasonably well that Ruby > can't do reasonably well (- the performance problem). This might solve the performance problem: >> I'm waiting for someone to do a decent >> implementation of Ruby on something like .NET before I start using it >> for anything I want to perform well. If they can do it right, well, it seems like MS wants to replace C++ with C#, thus .NET should perform decently. Mono means it's cross-platform, or at least, it runs JIT'ed on the platforms I care about. And hey, once you're on Gentoo or Ubuntu, it doesn't matter much, really. Install a Ruby app and Ruby becomes a dependency.