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

[Eric MSP Veith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I can confim that. FC6, initng 0.9.6, ifile 0.0.8.

Strange enough that this does not happen on my LFS box, even though I'm using 
the same font.


Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 01:54:02 schrieb 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


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF3PIVMpEdE19y46cRAo1DAJ0d3VkJCX3ucU41xlKjbRXf5ua4fgCfd0rZ
YrQ19ROmd5qx+Hp1b6Utyn4=
=oZzj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----