[Initng] [Fwd: Re: Parallelizing bootscripts [was: Make bootscripts more POSIX compliant]]

[Ismael Luceno]

Look at the following message, it talks about a bug some InitNG users
are seeing:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Parallelizing bootscripts [was: Make bootscripts more 
POSIX	compliant]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:44:26 +0000
From: Ken Moffat <ken at linuxfromscratch.org>
Reply-To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org>
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org>
References: 
<91705d080702192235ua489625m221da0de1d019349 at mail.gmail.com> 
<rukqa4-2b4.ln1 at langside.org.uk> 
<91705d080702192358n30c32b67y3e932ecb7a37b02c at mail.gmail.com> 
<jb7ra4-8o4.ln1 at langside.org.uk> 
<20070220174604.GA30850 at kadzban.is-a-geek.net>

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 12:46:04PM -0500, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> 
> On the topic of parallelizing the bootscripts, what do people think
> about doing this?  DJ has added some easily-parallelizable scripts to
> the contrib/ directory in the bootscripts repo (basically, by making
> them LSB compliant, you make them easy to run in parallel).  Should we
> look into making these scripts the default, perhaps for LFS 6.4 or 7?
> (And should we actually run them in parallel or not?)
> 
  If it causes no damage, and people think it's worth the time to
test it, yes to running in parallel.  I'd better clarify that -
earlier this month I noted that the total time from power-on to a
login prompt on my desktops is dominated by the time to a boot
prompt, the time to get a dhcp lease, time for ntp to start up, and
on one by time for X to start.

  For me, saving a couple of seconds in the bootscripts is neither
here nor there.  If X can start while ntp is deciding whether or not
to get out of bed, that would be nice - but if ntp decides to call
in sick, I'd like to get the report.

  As to testing, I'll mention that the via C7 I'm playing with for
possible lower-power (hah, 1 Watt less than my athlon64 when that is
at 1GHz with CnQ) seems to have an interesting race with the
bootscripts from December - when the console comes up with the
LatArCyrHeb font, one of the earlier messages gets rendered as if it
were mostly in cyrillic characters.  I've only seen it on that box,
it's mostly harmless, and it's such a slow dog that I'm not motivated
to debug it ;)  My point is that changing how the bootscripts are run
will need a *lot* of testing across different machines and
combinations of bootscripts.

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://jw.dyndns.org/pipermail/initng/attachments/20070221/36f680aa/attachment.pgp