Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Wait statements in boot-scripts not needed by OS?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
no.to...@gmail.com
Apr 30, 2012, 4:13:37 AM4/30/12
to
You may have noticed some "Wait statements" appearing
during the boot process, and seen them in the scripts of
the boot sequence.
These seem rather adhoc and amateurish with comments like
"better wait a bit for slow spin-up devices".
My theory as to why this 'guess how long to wait' method is
not needed once the booting is done, is that THEN the OS
which is multitasking, has a proper method of attending to
MULTIPLE devices, which require various random times to
deliver their requests.
Is this correct ?
I came to thinking about this because it seems inconsistent that
the error mesg of my initrd, on a Compact Flash says <put the dir
to an IDE device because this can't read SCSI>.
Well if all the stuff up to there INCLUDING the very test and error
message could be read from the CF, why can't the rest be read
from the CF?
What do you say?
== TIA.
during the boot process, and seen them in the scripts of
the boot sequence.
These seem rather adhoc and amateurish with comments like
"better wait a bit for slow spin-up devices".
My theory as to why this 'guess how long to wait' method is
not needed once the booting is done, is that THEN the OS
which is multitasking, has a proper method of attending to
MULTIPLE devices, which require various random times to
deliver their requests.
Is this correct ?
I came to thinking about this because it seems inconsistent that
the error mesg of my initrd, on a Compact Flash says <put the dir
to an IDE device because this can't read SCSI>.
Well if all the stuff up to there INCLUDING the very test and error
message could be read from the CF, why can't the rest be read
from the CF?
What do you say?
== TIA.
Peter Köhlmann
Apr 30, 2012, 4:42:51 AM4/30/12
to
no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
> You may have noticed some "Wait statements" appearing
> during the boot process, and seen them in the scripts of
> the boot sequence.
>
> These seem rather adhoc and amateurish with comments like
> "better wait a bit for slow spin-up devices".
>
> My theory as to why this 'guess how long to wait' method is
> not needed once the booting is done, is that THEN the OS
> which is multitasking, has a proper method of attending to
> MULTIPLE devices, which require various random times to
> deliver their requests.
>
> Is this correct ?
No.
> You may have noticed some "Wait statements" appearing
> during the boot process, and seen them in the scripts of
> the boot sequence.
>
> These seem rather adhoc and amateurish with comments like
> "better wait a bit for slow spin-up devices".
>
> My theory as to why this 'guess how long to wait' method is
> not needed once the booting is done, is that THEN the OS
> which is multitasking, has a proper method of attending to
> MULTIPLE devices, which require various random times to
> deliver their requests.
>
> Is this correct ?
And since you seem rather clueless, your comments about "amateurish" out
improper and idiotic
> I came to thinking about this because it seems inconsistent that
> the error mesg of my initrd, on a Compact Flash says <put the dir
> to an IDE device because this can't read SCSI>.
>
> Well if all the stuff up to there INCLUDING the very test and error
> message could be read from the CF, why can't the rest be read
> from the CF?
>
> What do you say?
>
Alastair Black
Apr 30, 2012, 8:45:28 AM4/30/12
to
you will check back this afternoon for my answer
and will think I have no answer, and will assume
that I have no answer, which is incorrect and
rather amateurish.
Alastair
Joe User
Apr 30, 2012, 12:07:22 PM4/30/12
to
I suggest that you optimize the scripts by removing the waits, and trying
it out. When you have it working properly, forward it to the maintainer.
You may learn something.
--
Prejudice is the reasoning of the stupid.
-- Voltaire
John Hasler
Apr 30, 2012, 1:07:49 PM4/30/12
to
Joe User writes:
> You may have noticed some "Wait statements" appearing during the boot
> process, and seen them in the scripts of the boot sequence.
Yes. I'm responsible for one of them on Debian.
> You may have noticed some "Wait statements" appearing during the boot
> process, and seen them in the scripts of the boot sequence.
> These seem rather adhoc and amateurish with comments like "better wait a
> bit for slow spin-up devices".
> My theory as to why this 'guess how long to wait' method is not needed
> once the booting is done, is that THEN the OS which is multitasking, has a
> proper method of attending to MULTIPLE devices, which require various
> random times to deliver their requests.
>
> Is this correct ?
init does not deal with this properly (though sometimes it has to do
with design flaws in the daemons). See the recent discussion of init
replacements on the debian-devel mailing list to see what people who
actually know what they are talking about think of the issue.
--
John Hasler
Dan C
Apr 30, 2012, 10:18:17 PM4/30/12
to
That you're an ignorant fucking stooge of a troll?
Yep.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as his rectum exploded.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg
Yep.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as his rectum exploded.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg
0 new messages