Re:Porting systemd to musl Libc-powered Linux
by nine_k on Thursday September 05, 2024 @09:27AM
(#41456437)
IDK; on my laptop, the boot time is dominated by opening the encrypted disk. From there it's well under 3 seconds to the Xfce login screen. (A T14, m.2 storage, runit as the init system.)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Porting systemd to musl Libc-powered Linux
by graemep on Thursday September 05, 2024 @10:26AM
(#41456955)
I find the same. Combine that with sleep being far more frequent that restart, and boot times are unimportant.
I think the need for faster boot comes from people who scale cloud servers or containers up and down a lot.
Re:Porting systemd to musl Libc-powered Linux
by nine_k on Thursday September 05, 2024 @03:48PM
(#41459864)
Yes. But a cloud VM instance can boot very quickly, because it has fixed hardware and does not have to probe for physical devices. Waiting for enough random events to happen to init the encryption used to be a major drain of startup time; likely not a problem any more.
Re:Porting systemd to musl Libc-powered Linux
by nialv7 on Thursday September 05, 2024 @05:12PM
(#41460448)
Unlocking encrypted disk isn't I/O bound though.
The key derivation step is designed to take a set amount of CPU time (say, a second), so it's difficult to brute force.
Re:Porting systemd to musl Libc-powered Linux
by nine_k on Thursday September 05, 2024 @07:20PM
(#41461261)
Indeed, it ought to take time to afford protection.
Optimizing the rest may be fun, but already changes little in a laptop.
(A cloud instance with a disk without encryption is a different business.)