LiveCDPerformance

Differences between revisions 25 and 37 (spanning 12 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 25 as of 2005-04-29 05:13:30 →
Size: 2788
Editor: intern146
Comment: good plan for short-term investigation at least; approved
← Revision 37 as of 2008-08-06 16:14:57 → ⇥
Size: 2181
Editor: localhost
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 6: Line 6:
== Status ==

  * Created: [[Date(2005-04-23T03:04:58Z)]] by MattZimmerman[[BR]]
  * Priority: MediumPriority[[BR]]
  * People: MatthewGarrettLead, FabioDiNittoSecond[[BR]]
  * Contributors: MattZimmerman[[BR]]
  * Interested: JuanjeOjeda[[BR]]
  * Status: BreezyGoal, ApprovedSpecification[[BR]]
  * Branch: [[BR]]
  * Malone Bug: [[BR]]
  * Packages: [[BR]]
  * Depends: [[BR]]
  * UduSessions: 2 [[BR]]		  * '''Launchpad Entry''': https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/live-cd-performance
 * '''Created''': <<Date(2005-04-23T03:04:58Z)>> by MattZimmerman<<BR>>
 * '''Contributors''': TollefFogHeen, MattZimmerman
 * '''Packages affected''': casper
Line 30: Line 21:
 1. Instrumentation is required in order to identify bottlenecks. d-i logs stage 1, we can wrap init scripts to provide timing information on their startup.  1. Instrumentation is required in order to identify bottlenecks. d-i logs stage 1, we can wrap init scripts to provide timing information on their startup.  Bootchart would also be useful. Bootchart wraps init and would be used for instrumenting stage 2. It stores it information in the live cd system where it could be uploaded to a central location such as bugzilla.
Line 32: Line 23:
 3. Optimise d-i modules that consume a large amount of time. Locale generation seems excessively slow, and potentially unnecessary for many language setups.
 4. Readahead may be a performance win with 256MB or more, but slower otherwise. Verify with different memory configurations, and ensure that readahead is only enabled when it's a performance benefit. http://unit.aist.go.jp/itri/knoppix/readahead/index-en.html has figures for Knoppix on cloop.
 5. Filesystem comparison - squashfs and unionfs may give a performance benefit. http://listas.hispalinux.es/pipermail/metadistros-dev/2005-April/000580.html suggests a 50 second improvement. Unionfs is currently unavailable on PPC, but can be used for testing on i386.
 6. Background network setup - this can be left for when the user has hit the desktop (NetworkMagic)		  3. Readahead may be a performance win with 256MB or more, but slower otherwise. Verify with different memory configurations, and ensure that readahead is only enabled when it's a performance benefit. http://unit.aist.go.jp/itri/knoppix/readahead/index-en.html has figures for Knoppix on cloop.
 4. Filesystem comparison - squashfs and unionfs may give a performance benefit. http://listas.hispalinux.es/pipermail/metadistros-dev/2005-April/000580.html suggests a 50 second improvement.
 5. Background network setup - this can be left for when the user has hit the desktop (NetworkMagic)
Line 43: Line 33:
For instrumentation, init requires modification. Performance issues in the first stage install will require d-i modifications. Any slow packages in second stage boot will need tweaks to improve performance. For instrumentation, init requires modification or bootchart, which will be a better choice. Performance issues in the first stage install will require d-i modifications. Any slow packages in second stage boot will need tweaks to improve performance.
Line 49: Line 39:
== Outstanding Issues ==

unionfs currently gives internal compiler errors on PPC.

=== UDU BOF Agenda ===

 * d-i performance
 * casper performance
 * Ubuntu boot performance (FasterBoot)

=== UDU Pre-Work ===

 * Profile the live CD boot sequence to measure the time taken for each step
  * d-i startup (time-to-first-question)
  * Pre-casper d-i activity (measured per menu entry)
  * Casper d-i activity (measured per casper.d script)
  * Standard boot sequence		 ----
CategorySpec

Live CD Performance

Introduction

The boot time for the Ubuntu live CD should be comparable (or superior) to other popular live CDs.

Rationale

The better the load time, the better the live CD experience, the greater chance an end user will want to use it and move on to installing Ubuntu or another distro.

Implementation Plan

  1. Instrumentation is required in order to identify bottlenecks. d-i logs stage 1, we can wrap init scripts to provide timing information on their startup. Bootchart would also be useful. Bootchart wraps init and would be used for instrumenting stage 2. It stores it information in the live cd system where it could be uploaded to a central location such as bugzilla.
  2. Enable DMA on livecd - it may not work on some systems, but it's effectively required

  3. Readahead may be a performance win with 256MB or more, but slower otherwise. Verify with different memory configurations, and ensure that readahead is only enabled when it's a performance benefit. http://unit.aist.go.jp/itri/knoppix/readahead/index-en.html has figures for Knoppix on cloop.

  4. Filesystem comparison - squashfs and unionfs may give a performance benefit. http://listas.hispalinux.es/pipermail/metadistros-dev/2005-April/000580.html suggests a 50 second improvement.

  5. Background network setup - this can be left for when the user has hit the desktop (NetworkMagic)

Data Preservation and Migration

None.

Packages Affected

For instrumentation, init requires modification or bootchart, which will be a better choice. Performance issues in the first stage install will require d-i modifications. Any slow packages in second stage boot will need tweaks to improve performance.

User Interface Requirements

None.

CategorySpec

LiveCDPerformance (last edited 2008-08-06 16:14:57 by localhost)