Post those boot times

...

Fuck off, sysd cock sucker.

...

Really slow over here.
OpenSUSE with KDE on this one SSD.

Sorry forgot picture

Gentoo on an M.2 or something?

Arch on my T440S, as far as I know its just a SATA3 SSD

Startup finished in 4.637s (kernel) + 35.318s (userspace) = 39.956s

How did you get kernel time so low?

Post pape please

nothin personnel kid

>3.4ms firmware

I wish

My Windows 10 machine literally takes 4.6 second from power button to desktop

Just looked for pointless shit in this list, and started hacking away non-vital stuff.

AHAH
faggot, time to update grandpa

...

I never understood the fascination with boot times.
I mean fuck, I cold boot maybe once a month, otherwise I just sleep the machine.

>blame
>systemd cool like old *nix ganstas yo
fucking fail

For desktops, I agree, but I restart my laptop all the time.

I wish I had the knowledge to know what exactly to disable without feeling like I'm doing something terribly wrong.

4.552s wicked.service

Ths is what I get at the top of my goddamn list.

usually done through gimping the shit out of the kernel and putting everything not necessary for bootup in a module

you might get a bit of a performance benefit through compiling some drivers into the initramfs too but ymmv

For me, fucking mariadb was adding over a second to the boot time. What the fuck is an sql daemon doing that adds a second to boot time?

Hibernation

kek

Here are the flags, not sure if it will help you but here ya go

...

Damn that's clean. Might do a fresh install to get rid of some of this garbage. How are you not overheating? Are powertop/upower/thermald not necessary?

I have upower but its disabled, I dont ever overheat and my fan is off most of the time

>using systemd

>Startup finished in 2.241s (kernel) + 968ms (userspace) = 3.209s

...

...

>boot times
Why..
Last one was like a minute I guess.

After I upgraded to 4.12 my time dropped from 45 to 22

Startup finished in 7.201s (kernel) + 14.956s (userspace) = 22.158s

...

Startup finished in 3.755s (kernel) + 9.090s (userspace) = 12.845s


Fucking dhcpcd takes 7.5 seconds to load, what the fuck.

Startup finished in 7.772s (firmware) + 1.057s (loader) + 2.462s (kernel) + 1min 1.518s (userspace) = 1min 12.811s

Startup finished in 2.999s (kernel) + 7.459s (userspace) = 10.458s

10 years old Core 2 Duo laptop with an SSD

is that you Luke?

`Startup finished in 3.061s (firmware) + 60ms (loader) + 1.510s (kernel) + 1.575s (userspace) = 6.207s`

I'm using systemd-logind.service for automatic login though, without it that time would be 960ms shorter

asus ux301la laptop, i7 + dual SSDs on arch with zen kernel

How to check on W7
>yes I r newfag

I guess you should get out.
Maybe visit google.

Is that bumblebee status bar?

Nbd

>hurr durr i r linxu superior user my way or the high way use googl newFag

He's right though. No idea why would anyone think that saying "pls spoonfeed" me is a better idea than using a search engine beforehand

Post blame please. I'm impressed.

why doesnt this work

And don't forget that trying to improve cold boot time, yes cold boot time not fucking hibernate hybrid boot/fast boot that is typical of windows in 8.1 and 10, is really fucking annoying on windows.

T. Non-linux user

there are linux distros that don't use the dick

>comparing boot times
what is it, 2008 all over again?
anything boots under 10-15 sec now, and it's enough

10 seconds is pleb

why should I care about another 5 secs?
literal ricers

5 seconds to boot? nigger really?

It doesn't add a second to boot time, it takes a second to start. Run systemd-analyze critical-chain

The second number is how long it took to start, but the first number is how long other units had to wait for it. For example, clamd took 12 seconds to start on my computer, but it was only blocking other processes for 1.6 seconds.

feels bad man

boot device: samsung 950 Pro nvme drive

that's ridiculous, my 10 year old laptop does better

Yeah my shittop from 2005 booted to desktop in under 3 seconds lol

i have full disk encryption, so this really isnt a concern for me.

>unironically using lennartware

What is that wallpaper?

Startup finished in 2.481s (kernel) + 2.092s (userspace) = 4.573s

Startup finished in 3.801s (kernel) + 6.687s (userspace) = 10.488s

>boot time
What did he mean by this?
t. Samsung 960 Evo user

...

posting favorite boot time

disgusting

>muh few seconds
what's the point? post your uptime, kiddies

$ uptime
07:15:11 up 12 days, 10:31, 11 users, load average: 0,50, 0,53, 0,69

Windows has started up:
Boot Duration : 31585ms

>muh uptime
See? I can do that as well.

that's pretty bad for windows
HDD?

950 pro

Windows loads things in the background once the desktop appears for like 25 of those seconds. The boot time from the end of POST to desktop is only like 5 seconds.

>not naming it archarin

Surely you meant bakarin.

How can see that?

To check your real boot time in windows, go to event viewer, applications services logs, then microsoft, windows, then click on diagnostics-performance
event 100 listing is boot performance

Shut down last night but here's a fresh one

Seek help.

fuck off Stallman

Since this a boot thread, can somebody explain why my Ubuntu won't get past the login screen unless I boot into Safe Mode/whatever and then hit resume boot?

>turning your computer off for any reason

kek

how is this possible?