29 Sep
2002
29 Sep
'02
4:17 p.m.
Can anyone give me advice on what will acheive the fastest boot time?
My options are the LinuxBIOS coupled with a DOC root or with root
configured on hda1 (IDE). I boot into X and I'll need standard
modules loaded. I'd like to fit the entire install on a DOC but only
IF I'll get a faster load/boot.
Would a combination be faster or just DOC ?
Much thanks in advance to anyone that can provide advice...
-Chris Bergeron
29 Sep
29 Sep
7:13 p.m.
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Christopher Bergeron wrote:
Can anyone give me advice on what will acheive the
fastest boot time?
My options are the LinuxBIOS coupled with a DOC root or with root
configured on hda1 (IDE). I boot into X and I'll need standard
modules loaded. I'd like to fit the entire install on a DOC but only
IF I'll get a faster load/boot.
you can't fit X onto the DoC you can buy today.
Fasted boot I've seen is with the kernel in DoC, then mount /dev/hda1 as
/.
ron
8:48 p.m.
New subject: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
Sunday, September 29, 2002, 5:26:37 PM, you wrote:
RGM> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Christopher Bergeron wrote:
> Can anyone give me advice on what will acheive the
fastest boot time?
> My options are the LinuxBIOS coupled with a DOC root or with root
> configured on hda1 (IDE). I boot into X and I'll need standard
> modules loaded. I'd like to fit the entire install on a DOC but only
> IF I'll get a faster load/boot.
RGM> Fasted boot I've seen is with the kernel in DoC, then mount /dev/hda1 as
RGM> /.
So DoC _IS_ faster than IDE? If this is the case, why should it be
that mounting it with /dev/hda1 as root would make for a faster boot?
By my logic, I would think that having /boot and /root on a DoC would
make it faster.
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Chris
10:32 p.m.
New subject: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Christopher Bergeron wrote:
So DoC _IS_ faster than IDE? If this is the case, why
should it be
that mounting it with /dev/hda1 as root would make for a faster boot?
By my logic, I would think that having /boot and /root on a DoC would
make it faster.
It is not faster. But it is faster to load a kernel from linux while the
slow IDE spins up. Then once the kernel is in there it can go to IDE.
ron
30 Sep
30 Sep
2:42 a.m.
New subject: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
> So DoC _IS_ faster than IDE? If this is the case,
why should it be
> that mounting it with /dev/hda1 as root would make for a faster boot?
> By my logic, I would think that having /boot and /root on a DoC would
> make it faster.
>
DoC _IS_NOT_ faster than IDE. IDE HD has the problem it
need to spin up
before taking any command while DoC does not. This spin up time delays
you booting speed. On the other hand, once spun up IDE HD is much faster
than DoC.
Ollie
I've been loading the Linux kernel from CompactFlash (CF) (raw image) in
/dev/hdc1, and then mount the root disk in /dev/hda1, and this is pretty
fast. I shortened the delays in the IDE routine since the CF doesn't need
spin up time. We really need an "intelligent" routine to find when an IDE
device is ready rather than a pure time delay.
-Steve
2:52 a.m.
New subject: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
Hello from Gregg C Levine
Steve? How so? How did you physically connect the CF card to your IDE bus? I
know a number of adapters exist to enable that feature, and I know that the
2.4 series contains the MTD (Memory Technology Drivers) functions directly,
but after that, I'm lost.
Gregg C Levine drwho8(a)worldnet.att.net
"Oh my!" The Second Doctor's nearly favorite phrase.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve M. Gehlbach" <steve(a)nexpath.com>
To: <linuxbios(a)clustermatic.org>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:09 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
> So DoC
_IS_ faster than IDE? If this is the case, why should it be
> that mounting it with /dev/hda1 as root would make for a faster boot?
> By my logic, I would think that having /boot and /root on a DoC would
> make it faster.
>
DoC _IS_NOT_ faster than IDE. IDE HD has the
problem it need to spin up
before taking any command while DoC does not. This spin up time delays
you booting speed. On the other hand, once spun up IDE HD is much faster
than DoC.
Ollie
I've been loading the Linux kernel from CompactFlash (CF) (raw image) in
/dev/hdc1, and then mount the root disk in /dev/hda1, and this is pretty
fast. I shortened the delays in the IDE routine since the CF doesn't need
spin up time. We really need an "intelligent" routine to find when an IDE
device is ready rather than a pure time delay.
-Steve
_______________________________________________
Linuxbios mailing list
Linuxbios(a)clustermatic.org
http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
3:23 a.m.
New subject: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
Hello from Gregg C Levine
Steve? How so? How did you physically connect the CF card to your
IDE bus? I
know a number of adapters exist to enable that feature, and I
know that the
2.4 series contains the MTD (Memory Technology Drivers) functions
directly,
but after that, I'm lost.
CF is electrically IDE compatible, but not physically. It requires an
adaptor, but the adaptor is completely passive except for the power
connector. I bought mine from from this site a while ago:
http://www.pcengines.com/cflash.htm. Otherwise, you use CF just like a
regular HDD, no special drivers required.
CF is less than 1/2 the price of DOC, so I have never really understood why
DOC became popular.
-Steve
4:13 a.m.
New subject: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 13:50, Steve M. Gehlbach wrote:
Most wear-leveling algorithm in CF or DOM are rather stupid (if they do
have) which result in unreliable parts. The algorithm in DOC's NFTL is
a little bit better.
Ollie
Hello from
Gregg C Levine
Steve? How so? How did you physically connect the CF card to your
IDE bus? I
know a number of adapters exist to enable that feature, and I
know that the
2.4 series contains the MTD (Memory Technology Drivers) functions
directly,
but after that, I'm lost.
CF is electrically IDE compatible, but not physically. It requires an
adaptor, but the adaptor is completely passive except for the power
connector. I bought mine from from this site a while ago:
http://www.pcengines.com/cflash.htm. Otherwise, you use CF just like a
regular HDD, no special drivers required.
CF is less than 1/2 the price of DOC, so I have never really understood why
DOC became popular.
5:35 p.m.
New subject: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Steve M. Gehlbach wrote:
CF is less than 1/2 the price of DOC, so I have never
really understood why
DOC became popular.
because the doc chip was a transparent replacement for the BIOS chip.
That's the only reason.
OUr 1024-node cluster uses CF in the primary IDE slot.
ron
11:20 p.m.
New subject: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
There are rumors that CF aren't reliable as DOC, is that true ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald G Minnich" <rminnich(a)lanl.gov>
To: "Steve M. Gehlbach" <steve(a)nexpath.com>
Cc: <linuxbios(a)clustermatic.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:47 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Steve M. Gehlbach wrote:
> CF is less than 1/2 the price of DOC, so I have never really understood
why
DOC became
popular.
because the doc chip was a transparent replacement for the BIOS chip.
That's the only reason.
OUr 1024-node cluster uses CF in the primary IDE slot.
ron
_______________________________________________
Linuxbios mailing list
Linuxbios(a)clustermatic.org
http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
6:07 a.m.
New subject: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
"Steve M. Gehlbach" <steve(a)nexpath.com> writes:
Check the current code in the etherboot source tree. We wait
for the BSY bit to clear before sending commands and it works
fine. Ollie has reported that on some host controllers this doesn't work
but I haven't seen that behavior in practice.
Anyway feel free to send patches...
Eric
> So DoC
_IS_ faster than IDE? If this is the case, why should it be
> that mounting it with /dev/hda1 as root would make for a faster boot?
> By my logic, I would think that having /boot and /root on a DoC would
> make it faster.
>
DoC _IS_NOT_ faster than IDE. IDE HD has the
problem it need to spin up
before taking any command while DoC does not. This spin up time delays
you booting speed. On the other hand, once spun up IDE HD is much faster
than DoC.
Ollie
I've been loading the Linux kernel from CompactFlash (CF) (raw image) in
/dev/hdc1, and then mount the root disk in /dev/hda1, and this is pretty
fast. I shortened the delays in the IDE routine since the CF doesn't need
spin up time. We really need an "intelligent" routine to find when an IDE
device is ready rather than a pure time delay.
9:54 a.m.
New subject: Is linuxbios GPL ?
Is the linuxbios code GPL? Does the GPL allow for inclusion into other
operating systems? The reason I'm asking is because I'm very concerned
that some other OS maker (ahem: MSFT) may take this codebase and try to
create a MSFT version. Is this possible or am I worrying needlessly? I
kow MSFT steals code (BSD tcp/ip stack comes to mind) and I'm wondering
what provisions are out there to protect this amazing project.
And while I'm at it, kudos to all the developers!
-Chris
10:27 a.m.
New subject: Is linuxbios GPL ?
On Monday 30 September 2002 1:08 pm, Christopher Bergeron wrote:
Is the linuxbios code GPL?
Yes. It says so in the file COPYING distributed with the source code.
Also see http://sourceforge.net/projects/freebios
Does the GPL allow for inclusion into other operating
systems?
Yes, but only under the condition that any code which results is also freely
released under the GPL.
The GPL is quite clear about this really:
1. Commercial organisations *can* take Open Source Software, build it into
products, and sell them for money.
2. Anyone who makes changes to GPL code and distributes the result (ie it's
not for purely private use) *must* make the modified source available under
the terms of the GPL (ie anyone else can take it and do what they want with
it...)
3. It is allowed to take GPL code, build separate proprietary software which
is *not* based upon the code, and is *not* derived from it, and distribute
the two together without making the proprietary source available. However
in this case you have to be very careful that the two really are separate,
and that it cannot be said that the proprietary part is based on the GPL part.
4. There is a modified version of the GPL for library files to allow people
to create proprietary Closed Source code which links to Open Source
libraries, however the specific libraries must be realeased upon this version
(called the LGPL) for this to apply.
However, all that said, I'm not aware of any instance where the GPL has been
tested in court (or even "out of court" as they say) against a company
accused of taking GPL code and developing closed source products from it.
If M$ is not bothered about defying the US Government, it's hard to think of
anyone they are bothered about.....
Antony.
--
90% of network problems are routing problems.
9 of the remaining 10% are routing problems in the other direction.
The remaining 1% might be something else, but check the routing anyway.
1:30 p.m.
New subject: Is linuxbios GPL ?
However, all that said, I'm not aware of any
instance where the GPL has been
tested in court (or even "out of court" as they say) against a company
accused of taking GPL code and developing closed source products from it.
Read "Enforcing The GPL" I and II at <http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/>.
Apparently the GPL has been tested out of court several times, and
Moglen claims it has never been tested *in* court precisely because it
is so watertight.
GPL has the nicely recursive feature of being considerably less
restrictive that the normal license agreements from which the rest of
the software industry makes its money, so if anyone managed to get GPL
challenged, all such licenses would be suspect. As the only group likely
to be so motivated is precisely that same software industry, this won't
be happening any time soon. :)
6:02 p.m.
New subject: Is linuxbios GPL ?
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 01:40:19PM +0100, Antony Stone wrote:
On Monday 30 September 2002 1:08 pm, Christopher
Bergeron wrote:
[..snip..]
Is the linuxbios code GPL?
Yes. It says so in the file COPYING distributed with the source code. However, all that said, I'm not aware of any
instance where the GPL has
been tested in court (or even "out of court" as they say) against a
company accused of taking GPL code and developing closed source products
from it.
Try XVID vs Sigma Designs, http://xvid.org/ and http://www.sigmadesigns.com/
//Peter
1 Oct
1 Oct
2:09 a.m.
New subject: Is linuxbios GPL ?
However, all that said, I'm not aware of any
instance where the GPL has been
tested in court (or even "out of court" as they say) against a company
accused of taking GPL code and developing closed source products from it.
Read "Enforcing The GPL" I and II at <http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/>.
Apparently the GPL has been tested out of court several times, and
Moglen claims it has never been tested *in* court precisely because it
is so watertight.
GPL has the nicely recursive feature of being considerably less
restrictive that the normal license agreements from which the rest of
the software industry makes its money, so if anyone managed to get GPL
challenged, all such licenses would be suspect. As the only group likely
to be so motivated is precisely that same software industry, this won't
be happening any time soon. :)
30 Sep
30 Sep
5:38 p.m.
New subject: Is linuxbios GPL ?
linuxbios is gpl. The reason is that the original code base (freebios) is
GPL; DOE encourages GPL projects; and the chipset vendors really wanted it
to be GPL.
I don't really care if MSFT uses it or not.
ron
29 Sep
29 Sep
10:54 p.m.
New subject: Re[2]: DOC vs. IDE
On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 07:00, Christopher Bergeron wrote:
Sunday, September 29, 2002, 5:26:37 PM, you wrote:
RGM> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Christopher Bergeron wrote:
DoC _IS_NOT_ faster than IDE. IDE HD has the problem it need to spin up
before taking any command while DoC does not. This spin up time delays
you booting speed. On the other hand, once spun up IDE HD is much faster
than DoC.
Ollie
> Can anyone give me advice on what will
acheive the fastest boot time?
> My options are the LinuxBIOS coupled with a DOC root or with root
> configured on hda1 (IDE). I boot into X and I'll need standard
> modules loaded. I'd like to fit the entire install on a DOC but only
> IF I'll get a faster load/boot.
RGM> Fasted boot I've seen is with the kernel in DoC, then mount /dev/hda1 as
RGM> /.
So DoC _IS_ faster than IDE? If this is the case, why should it be
that mounting it with /dev/hda1 as root would make for a faster boot?
By my logic, I would think that having /boot and /root on a DoC would
make it faster.
23 Oct
23 Oct
1:05 p.m.
you can't fit X onto the DoC you can buy today.
Fasted boot I've seen is with the kernel in DoC, then mount /dev/hda1 as
/.
ron
Even an X like Qt embedded? My Zaurus only has 32Mb on it, and it boots
into X in about 4 seconds. While I don't expect _that_ speedy of a
boot, I would think I could achieve significantly less than 35(ish)
seconds it takes now. Also, did you factor in the IDE spinup boot delay
of having an IDE /. directory? If the DOC+IDE is faster, do you mean
throughput wise or time wise? I'm referring to an earlier message that
you replied to Todd Johnson and his boot times (message below). It
seemed as if the 2 emails conflict in what they're saying, so I just
wanted to ask for a little clarification (not doubting you, just a
little unclear on the principle).
Essentially what I'm wondering is if a small footprint X could be booted
into via DOC and if it would be faster than DOC+IDE (considering the IDE
spinup delay).
Your thoughts?
Ronald G Minnich wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Christopher Bergeron wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Todd E. Johnson wrote:
Can anyone give me advice on what will acheive the
fastest boot time?
My options are the LinuxBIOS coupled with a DOC root or with root
configured on hda1 (IDE). I boot into X and I'll need standard
modules loaded. I'd like to fit the entire install on a DOC but only
IF I'll get a faster load/boot.
you can't fit X onto the DoC you can buy today.
Fasted boot I've seen is with the kernel in DoC, then mount /dev/hda1 as
/.
ron
BTW, it seems that there is no booting action (Based
on the Serial
you can't do anything until the HDD spins up, and yes it's because you've
god file system on the HDD. There's not much to be done for this.
ron
output) until the HDD spins up. Is this a result
of me keeping my root
file system on the HDD?
6907
days inactive
6931
days old
19 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Antony Stone -
Christopher Bergeron -
CMZ -
ebiederman＠lnxi.com -
Gregg C Levine -
ollie lho -
Peter Lister -
Peter Stuge -
prl-linuxbios＠sychron.com -
Ronald G Minnich -
Steve M. Gehlbach