LiveCDPerformance

Differences between revisions 3 and 37 (spanning 34 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 3 as of 2005-04-24 08:19:14 →
Size: 1302
Editor: intern146
Comment: people
← 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: AdamConradLead, FabioMassimoDiNittoSecond[[BR]]
  * Contributors: MattZimmerman[[BR]]
  * Interested: [[BR]]
  * Status: BrainDump, BreezyGoal, UduBof, DistroSpecification[[BR]]
  * Branch: [[BR]]
  * Malone Bug: [[BR]]
  * Packages: [[BR]]
  * Depends: [[BR]]
  * UduSessions: 1, 4, 8, etc [[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 26: Line 17:
== Scope and Use Cases == 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.
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. 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)
Line 31: Line 28:

None.
Line 34: Line 33:
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 36: Line 37:
== Outstanding Issues == None.
Line 38: Line 39:
=== 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)