edward at tripled.iinet.net.au
Tue Aug 30 07:12:17 UTC 2005
> Hi there,
> i was using FC2 before. I have a very slow
> machine (Celeron 600 on SiS630 with 256MBs of RAM) so
> In FC2 i stopped some services, like sendmail,
> iptables(my modem does not work under linux so i do
> not use it for internet), isdn, ntfs, network etc. as
> they are not needed for a single, no-internet PC. With
> these servies stopped FC2 took 1/2 of the booting
> now i have a fresh installation of FC3 and it takes
> VERY-LONG time to boot as compared to FC2. Even after
> i have stopped the same services (same as FC2 which i
> do not need), it still takes VERY LONG time to boot.
> actually 2 services in the boot-process:
> 1.) starting: udev
> 2.) initializing hardware: storage network audio done
> take VERY-LONG TIME. other services are fine in
> comparable to FC2 boot-up time-consuming process. In
> fact these 2 services were NOT PRESENT on FC2. they
> only appear in FC3 ( and they are frustrating
> NOW ca! n anybody tell me PLEASE
> -- what are the functions of these 2 services and
> -- how can i remove them (if and only if they are not
As far as I know, FC2 and below used static /dev entries, whereas FC3
and above use dynamic ones. Your /dev tree gets populated at boot time
Personally - my experience is like yours - the Linux boot up procedure
is slow enough as it is and I would prefer going back to static /dev
entries if it means faster booting but I'll just go with the times.
For my server I don't mind so much, as it's never rebooted, but my
laptop is dismal.
Anyway - I think I've partly answered your question. As to why using
udev is better or why we went to it - I don't know. For me it's more of
a hindrance than a benefit, but I probably don't understand it fully.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 363 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20050830/13385e5b/attachment-0002.vcf
More information about the users