Boot time comparisons

Message

davesurrey · #1 Post by **davesurrey** » Fri 27 Nov 2009, 20:33

We often hear that Puppy is sleek compared with the "bloat" of Windows or other Linux distros. And a quick look at the file sizes easily bares this out.

As it loads into Ram it's easy to see the speed with which it starts up applications. But for a while I've wondered how well Puppy compares in booting.

So I did a few simple tests to compare it with other distros.

As a trained scientist I make no claim of scientific rigour in these tests but feel they give a useful comparison.

Of course I used the same PC, the same HDD and all the distros had a similar load of applications installed, with the exception of Windows XP which was lightly loaded.

All Puppys were Frugal installs except for one Full install where noted.

I measured the time between selecting the distro from the grub boot screen and when the desktop had loaded and I could start loading an application.

Also for the distros that needed a user-name and password to be entered I had to judge the time it took to do this and subtract from the timing.

Before anyone says it I am aware that some distros (eg Windows) offer a full desktop and can start loading apps even when a lot of activity is still happening "under the surface". I had no way to judge this so have had to ignore it.

RESULTS (in seconds):

Puppy 412 ......57
Puppy 420V2 ......57
Puppy 431 ......44
Puppy 431.1 ......43
Pup 214X16 ......38
Ubuntu 9.04 ......60
Ubuntu 9.10 ......65
Debian 5 ......57
Fedora 12 ......88
Slitaz Cooking ......21
TinyCore 2.5 ......37
Puppy 431 Full ......19
Windows XP ......41

My conclusions are that newer Puppys seem to be doing even better than before. Only Slitaz is faster and TinyCore similar. Unless one does a Full rather than the more usual Frugal install in which case Puppy beats them all.

Due to what I say above about Windows I make no comparison with it and Linux distros.

It was interesting for me so I thought I'd share it.

Cheers
Dave

Lobster · #2 Post by **Lobster** » Sat 28 Nov 2009, 01:22

Interesting and surprising results, in particular

Puppy 431 Full ......19

might have to try a full install - have not done one for years

have added your results here:
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/AboutPuppy

gposil · #3 Post by **gposil** » Sat 28 Nov 2009, 05:38

I can confirm Dave's results in terms of differences, I tested on our big machine (i7, 8gb RAM, 1Gb video etc...)

These are Full Installs:

Ubuntu 9.10......41secs
WinXP SP3.........40secs
Debian Lenny.....32 secs
Puppy 4.12........19secs
Puppy 4.2.1.......17secs
Slitaz Cooking....14secs
Puppy 4.3.1.......12secs
Dpup 4.8.2........12secs

Let me stress that these comparisons only bear out the relative performance as Dave has said....

Cheers

tubeguy · #4 Post by **tubeguy** » Sat 28 Nov 2009, 15:26

Before anyone says it I am aware that some distros (eg Windows) offer a full desktop and can start loading apps even when a lot of activity is still happening "under the surface". I had no way to judge this so have had to ignore it.

I have this issue with users where I work. They get a desktop and right away try doing something and it takes forever, they think there's something wrong. I used to try explaining why, but now I just tell them it's not done starting up yet. Big difference between a full load and getting a desktop, and on typical Windows installs, there are multiple other programs starting like chat, antivirus, firewall and whatever various and sundry cruft is picked up along the users way. Interesting how Ubuntu, Debian and Fedora all take longer than Windows, although IIRC I had the same experience when distro-hopping early on, thinking "this is better than Windows....why?" Speed is still the main reason I use Puppy. I just can't deal with waiting for stuff to happen when I'm in a groove.

Lobster · #5 Post by **Lobster** » Sat 28 Nov 2009, 17:15

when I'm in a groove

Stay in the groove . . .

There are a lot of variables . . .
Many Windows users go make a cup of tea (or coffee)
whilst their machine boots, 'secures', connects and
contacts the Latvian hackers bank for zombie updates

Some even have time to plant and harvest the coffee beans . . .

What might be of interest is a comparison of Live CD's
- including the Latvian Austrumi

(apologies to Latvian Puppys)
and perhaps DSL (remember them)
[Gosh I am in Darf Lobster mode]

I must say, I think of Window as a non-Linux, commercial distro.
An operating system allows us to operate our software
- that should be simple and seamless
not a wealth enhancing drain on system resources
[now in rant mode - must stop]

More stat tests welcome

We are Frisky
and we have the stats to prove it

clarf · #6 Post by **clarf** » Sat 28 Nov 2009, 21:43

gposil wrote:I can confirm Dave's results in terms of differences, I tested on our big machine (i7, 8gb RAM, 1Gb video etc...)

These are Full Installs:

Cheers

Hey gposil, Seems that Dpup is really fast but Where is 214X?

clarf

gposil · #7 Post by **gposil** » Sat 28 Nov 2009, 22:25

clarf...just don't have a full install of 2.14X, my gut feeling is it would be slightly quicker than Dpup...

sikpuppy · #8 Post by **sikpuppy** » Sun 29 Nov 2009, 01:09

gposil wrote:clarf...just don't have a full install of 2.14X, my gut feeling is it would be slightly quicker than Dpup...

If you want a comparison with an obscure Linux you could always line up any of these against your consumer class router...the majority of which have an embedded linux OS. (Not that I think this would run comfortably on any desktop).

exProphecy · #9 Post by **exProphecy** » Sun 29 Nov 2009, 08:30

This is a great test, I'm glad someone finally did this! Thank you!

davesurrey · #10 Post by **davesurrey** » Sun 29 Nov 2009, 13:34

Lobster,
Thank you for adding my results to the wiki but would you please edit the list for the following reasons:

1. it would add clarity if you explained that all my Puppy results are frugal installs except the 431 full.

2. as you have mentioned the gposil results and his rig's spec perhaps you should add his name and add my spec.
This is AMD Athlon XP 1700 1GB DDR Ram, FX5200 (256MB) graphics card.

3. could you kindly use my correct name. It's "davesurrey" rather than Dave Surrey.

4. please change the Debian 5 result from 57 62. It should be 57.

Thank you.
Dave

#11 Post by MU » Sun 29 Nov 2009, 20:57

an important point is this:

Puppy (frugal) looks for savefiles on all partitions.
If you have only sda1, it will be quick.
If you have 8 partitions, it will be slower (as is must mount each, search, then unmount).
Using a frugal install, you can bypass this with options like
pdev1=sda5 psubdir=/puppy

Then only the folder /puppy on sda5 is searched.
On my system with 30 partitions (one internal HD, 1 CF card, 2 external USB drives) this increases the startup dramatically.

Mark

Lobster · #12 Post by **Lobster** » Sun 29 Nov 2009, 21:17

please edit the list

done

davesurrey · #13 Post by **davesurrey** » Sun 29 Nov 2009, 22:11

Lobster: thanks but I'm afraid the next problem is that you have written

Puppy 420V2 412 frugal install

It should be

Puppy 420v2 frugal install

MU: Hi good to hear from you again.
Yes I agree with what you say. Good point.

For info my results did have all puppy frugals in a sub-directory and "psubdir=XXX" in the grub stanza.

Dave

Lobster · #14 Post by **Lobster** » Mon 30 Nov 2009, 05:05

It should be

it now is . . .
many thanks

tubeguy · #15 Post by **tubeguy** » Tue 01 Dec 2009, 18:32

Many Windows users go make a cup of tea (or coffee)
whilst their machine boots, 'secures', connects and
contacts the Latvian hackers bank for zombie updates Twisted Evil
Some even have time to plant and harvest the coffee beans . . .

Very true. This leads to people wanting to just leave their machines on, which is joke in itself because they end up needing a reboot every week or so anyway. What's funny for me is that sometimes after being at work with all the Winboxen around, I sometimes forget how fast Puppy is and go to do something during a reboot, only to see it ready to go already.

and perhaps DSL (remember them)

Oh yeah. First time I saw Conky was a DSL install.

Stay in the groove . . .

Will do.

p310don · #16 Post by **p310don** » Wed 02 Dec 2009, 05:05

to take it a step further, and to make it useful, try doing the same bootup tests, but, also include opening a web browser and loading www.google.com, or similarly, open an office or text document to the point of it being able to be edited.

This is where puppy really excels, I know my ubuntu pruter takes a long time(15 - 20 secs) to be useful after I get a desktop, and windows is even longer. Puppy is usable virtually the instant I see the desktop.

benali72 · #17 Post by **benali72** » Wed 02 Dec 2009, 05:33

With Windows press Ctrl+Shift+Esc as the system boots, then you can see the CPU usage graph and say that Windows is done loading when CPU levels out at under 10% (usually a few percent on most systems). When I do this I find that it's the anti-malware stuff that takes so long before the system quiesces (like AVG and Ad-aware).

On my 5-year-old 2.6 ghz celeron with 1g ram and 140mb IDE/ATA disk Windows doesn't quiesce until almost 3 full minutes. In contrast, Puppy 4.3.1 full install comes up and quiesces in well under 30 seconds.

In my hobby of refurbishing old computers for charity, I increasingly find that it's all the anti-malware overhead that kills off Windows on older computers (5 - 10 years old). Puppy has none of this overhead and it really makes a difference in boot and performance comparisons.

tubeguy · #18 Post by **tubeguy** » Wed 02 Dec 2009, 11:21

quiesces

Great word. Most articulate explanation I've seen.

thelaptopkiller · #19 Post by **thelaptopkiller** » Wed 02 Dec 2009, 20:38

I did a vindows test.I istalled vindows and timed the bootup and compared it to a loaded(as in has programs and stuff and games etc.) install
the times are:
fresh vindows time from bootloader to full run=8 seconds on second boot
loaded vindows=7 minutes

normal boot

Thelaptopkiller

tubeguy · #20 Post by **tubeguy** » Wed 02 Dec 2009, 21:59

Heh. Those 7 minute boot times bring in some cash for me now and then cleaning up friends' machines.

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Boot time comparisons

Boot time comparisons

how to measure Windows vs Puppy

thats right