Systemd-analyze time

systemd-analyze time
post 'em.

Attached: 6ivYjETp.jpg (512x512, 23K)

Startup finished in 3.759s (firmware) + 2.706s (loader) + 3.884s (kernel) + 6.469s (userspace) = 16.820s
graphical.target reached after 6.281s in userspace
debian sid on T440s

Startup finished in 6.048s (kernel) + 11.342s (userspace) = 17.390s
graphical.target reached after 7.006s in userspace

it's actually longer than that because my motherboard takes its sweet time fondling various bits of hardware before the bootloader even gets control.

I'm gonna guess that I lack a "firmware" section because the machine is a traditional non-UEFI BIOS.

>I'm gonna guess that I lack a "firmware" section because the machine is a traditional non-UEFI BIOS.
most likely. I'm curious what difference systemd-boot and not dual-booting would make compared to my current times.

Startup finished in 7.326s (kernel) + 33.909s (userspace) = 41.236s
graphical.target reached after 33.883s in userspace
my lignux boots from a plain ol' hdd though, because windows 7 needs the ssd in my box, because windows a shit and would be way too slow otherwise.

bash: systemd-analyze: command not found

Startup finished in 8.104s (firmware) + 2.526s (loader) + 8.370s (kernel) + 2.883s (userspace) = 21.884s
multi-user.target reached after 2.781s in userspace

i do the same thing, but i set aside a 16G partition on the ssd to use for bcache

I tried and failed.

I'M RUNNING SLACKWARE ENJOY YOUR SYSTEMDICK FAGGOTS

thanks! i will!

Startup finished in 3.112s (kernel) + 7.955s (userspace) = 11.068s
graphical.target reached after 7.955s in userspace


snowflakes

nice. never even considered that. will do it next time i upgrade one of my drives.

>knowingly running systemd related commands when you don't use systemd while posting in a systemd thread
who is really the cuck here? what do you have to prove?

'systemd-analyze time' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file.

Attached: 1300044776986.jpg (250x250, 10K)

>who is really the cuck here?
people with systemd

cirno% systemd-analyze time
systemd-analyze: './systemd-analyze' not found
cirno%

how do I use this in a non-systemd distro

only sysadmin is allowed to name everything after 2hus

Going for a smoke

Startup finished in 35.509s (kernel) + 52.357s (userspace) = 1min 27.867s

>implying I care about what that neet does

what the fuck?

Startup finished in 12.718s (firmware) + 5.230s (loader) + 1.068s (kernel) + 7min 30.536s (initrd) + 6.959s (userspace) = 7min 56.512s

Not bad for a 20 year old SPARC system, methinks.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-06-11_02-39-22.png (450x28, 2K)

try from a cold boot. what distro are you running?

imagine entering a systemd thread only to tell people you don't have systemd
do you also enter fglt to tell people you use a mac?

fedora
i usually just resume from suspend, maybe i hibernated with this machine though
my uptime atm is 174 days so i don't really want to cold boot cause i'm afraid of it not booting up again

Startup finished in 3.030s (kernel) + 3.915s (userspace) = 6.946s
multi-user.target reached after 3.882s in userspace

Startup finished in 3.886s (firmware) + 104ms (loader) + 2.117s (kernel) + 1.574s (userspace) = 7.683s
graphical.target reached after 1.574s in userspace

Startup finished in 5.607s (firmware) + 19.404s (loader) + 6.951s (kernel) + 3.966s (userspace) = 35.929s


What the fuck. Running Arch with full disk encryption on a SSD, is that normal?

>Startup finished in 22.580s (kernel) + 29.484s (userspace) = 52.064s
linux-libre-xtreme 5.0.6_gnu-1, HDD, encrypted, using apparmor too.
>Startup finished in 17.903s (kernel) + 27.959s (userspace) = 45.862s
linux-libre-lts 4.19.45_gnu-1, same machine
>Startup finished in 16.785s (kernel) + 27.650s (userspace) = 44.435s
linux-libre 5.1.6-gnu-1, same machine

+1

If you're managing computers of any kind it's criminal not to name them after 2hus

Startup finished in 6.534s (kernel) + 12.195s (userspace) = 18.730s
graphical.target reached after 12.178s in userspace

1.2 million lines of code to run some commands at boot.

Attached: download.jpg (480x360, 18K)

>Startup finished in 3.924s (firmware) + 4.251s (loader) + 2.093s (kernel) + 12.840s (initrd) + 36.647s (userspace) = 59.757s
graphical.target reached after 36.634s in userspace
I'm not running an ssd but I run encryption too, could that be why we are so behind?
it's funny because systemdlets have over a minute boot times with almost no services started at boot lole

what the fuck? what piece of shit are you running
Why would it not boot after reboots lmao
Is like you don't like upgrading your kernel

Startup finished in 3.066s (firmware) + 67ms (loader) + 2.504s (kernel) + 8.812s (userspace) = 14.451s
graphical.target reached after 8.812s in userspace

"no"

Startup finished in 6.291s (kernel) + 1min 15.497s (userspace) = 1min 21.788s

On my old atom n450 netbook. She ain't much but she keeps me going

Startup finished in 792ms (kernel) + 3.855s (userspace) = 4.647s graphical.target reached after 749ms in userspace
Running based gentoo 4.19.44

Cucked by intel yet again.

Startup finished in 12.772s (firmware) + 3.042s (loader) + 41.340s (kernel) + 51.691s (userspace) = 1min 48.847s
graphical.target reached after 51.669s in userspace

Startup finished in 2.024s (kernel) + 4.521s (userspace) = 6.545s
graphical.target reached after 4.506s in userspace

Windows 10 on the other hand, takes at least double than that.

3.830s (kernel) + 9.743s (initrd) + 45.607s (userspace) = 59.182s

2007 c2d craptop running fedora kde

all done in order to slavishly imitate macOS, no less

Startup finished in 13.190s (kernel) + 51.335s (userspace) = 1min 4.525s
graphical.target reached after 51.314s in userspace

I thought this thing was supposed to be fast

Startup finished in 16.222s (firmware) + 3.066s (loader) + 3.374s (kernel) + 2.091s (userspace) = 24.755s
graphical.target reached after 2.000s in userspace
Bloody slow-ass firmware. It doesn't feel like it takes that long.

Attached: 1559361675716.jpg (1025x1278, 143K)

Startup finished in 19.004s (firmware) + 2.798s (loader) + 2.773s (kernel) + 6.655s (userspace) = 31.232s
graphical.target reached after 6.655s in userspace
Considering muh HDD, this Isn't bad, I guess.

>we need the simple boot script to be an incoherent overcomplication, full holes for remote execution somewhat like a gay sex party

Startup finished in 4.639s (kernel) + 3.113s (userspace) = 7.753s
graphical.target reached after 2.390s in userspace


>2019
>using a bootloader when booting through EFI exists

bash: systemd-analyze: command not found

Startup finished in 6min 5.741s (kernel) + 42.372s (userspace) = 6min 48.113s
graphical.target reached after 42.372s in userspace
I failed my cryptsetup luks password like 6 times last boot.
Don't forget, if your system boots in seconds your encryption isn't secure.

b&r

Absolutely based. This is the only proper systemd-analyze output.

>imagine actually using systemdicks

Attached: 1557124380076.jpg (1280x720, 103K)

Startup finished in 4.937s (kernel) + 3.394s (userspace) = 8.332s
graphical.target reached after 3.394s in userspace

You didn't post yours OP

Startup finished in 4.798s (firmware) + 8.494s (loader) + 4.539s (kernel) + 17.618s (userspace) = 35.450s
graphical.target reached after 14.217s in userspace

>minimalist brainlets don't even have any way to measure their boot time
o i am laffin

shit, thanks for making me realize i need boottime measurment to be productive

systemd-analyze time
Startup finished in 2.986s (kernel) + 2.465s (userspace) = 5.451s
graphical.target reached after 1.588s in userspace

based 1000 year old X220 on Arch

Startup finished in 5.468s (firmware) + 3.738s (loader) + 5.097s (kernel) + 6.373s (userspace) = 20.678s
graphical.target reached after 5.349s in userspace

>productive
you're on Jow Forums, you're not fooling anyone

This thread has proven to me, more than any discussion about systemd's pros and cons I have read, that there's (at least) a bunch of imbeciles using systemd.

Not everybody is a meme-spouting hyper-autist, such as yourself.
I personally like systemd, and think it does its job very well.

systemd hating losers like you are what we call a loud minority, just look at this thread, it doesn't concern you and your kind and yet you still flock in saying "hurr durr i don't use systemd"

Attached: troll_or_stupid.png (552x414, 215K)

go back to your little echo chamber
devuan.org

>running a command to release mustard gas in Africa
No, thanks.

Attached: 1532259172099.png (1238x989, 40K)

>Not everybody is a meme-spouting hyper-autist, such as yourself
I know right? Not everyone has the luxury of deciding on principle. You come here and brag about boot times? Fuck that's a retard pastime if I ever saw one. Explain how are boot times significant. How are you different that backstreet gypsies ricing up their cars? I bet you retards have led strips on your "battlestation" too.
I know your mind can't process complicated comments, therefore you must be ok in life with others overrulling you. It's been a long life of submitting to others, and it usually is not very bad isn't it? But what "you" call me or how the numbers turn out in this post doesn't change the fact that systemd has been thrust upon you because you are idiots trying to convince themselves that "desktop linux" is a thing. I could use your own retarded reply and say "look at the whole world, no one uses your precious systemd", if I wanted to be as irrelevant as you are playing on numbers instead of understanding. And you wouldn't accept it in a cascade of stupidity and contradictions. But such are the bowels of the tech world. Those of us who are relevant affect relevant systems, systems that work for years without rebooting. Those of you travelling down the bowels are turned into waste. Come on, call me autistic again, sheep.

>being this triggered
lmao

>look at me guys! im a rebel
cute

I use disk encryption. As an experiment, I waited 90 seconds before typing my password, and got this:

Startup finished in 25.322s (firmware) + 4.378s (loader) + 1min 39.132s (kernel) + 7.180s (userspace) = 2min 16.014s

If your drive is encrypted, the timer keeps ticking until you decrypt it. My real boot time is 46 seconds, which is slightly less shit.

Attached: akko_silly.png (576x492, 394K)

Startup finished in 5.127s (firmware) + 5.964s (loader) + 2.552s (kernel) + 9.048s (userspace) = 22.692s
graphical.target reached after 9.037s in userspace

please cry more triggered init-autists, it's delicious

Imagine being this guy

Attached: aN1KzMK_700b.jpg (700x1885, 307K)

```
Startup finished in 1.920s (kernel) + 1.274s (userspace) = 3.194s
graphical.target reached after 1.258s in userspace
```

Attached: sogood.jpg (735x720, 56K)

Mines about a minute - but then I have a truck load of stuff to startup.

Because then I'm ready to werk.

An analogy here would be
>whoooooh! Muh Trabant 600 starts up in 0.6 seconds.
>so does muh Ferrari...

Attached: 58380241_10157102274163764_6823087077668683776_n.jpg (768x960, 142K)

Startup finished in 12.616s (firmware) + 3.242s (loader) + 2.676s (kernel) + 4min 47.546s (initrd) + 12.571s (userspace) = 5min 18.653s
graphical.target reached after 12.562s in userspace
I turned it on, but then ran to get lunch as it waited at the encryption password prompt.
Fedora 28 on Dell E6540

Startup finished in 7.892s (kernel) + 24.588s (userspace) = 32.481s
graphical.target reached after 24.588s in userspace
Arch on an 8gb usb2 zip disquette

>release mustard gas
>in africa
Yes, thanks

Startup finished in 14.332s (kernel) + 11.695s (userspace) = 26.028s

Debian GNU/Linux, testing, 4.19, amd64.

oof here we go

Startup finished in 5.929s (kernel) + 2min 11.502s (userspace) = 2min 17.431s
graphical.target reached after 2min 11.492s in userspace

good thing my potato didn't catch on fire doing that too

Startup finished in 6.114s (kernel) + 1.493s (initrd) + 7.457s (userspace) = 15.064s
graphical.target reached after 7.447s in userspace
Fedora Silverblue 30
My old Gentoo box with systemd took 2 seconds to boot to SDDM

Startup finished in 59min 42.567s (firmware) + 4.997s (loader) + 8.857s (kernel) + 1min 37.430s (userspace) = 1h 1min 33.854s
graphical.target reached after 1min 37.419s in userspace
I win.

Post systemd-analyze blame as well

>2min 968ms apt-daily.service

Farkin'ell!

17.262s firewalld.service
16.120s udisks2.service
12.027s ModemManager.service
10.430s NetworkManager-wait-online.service
10.240s sssd.service
8.146s avahi-daemon.service
7.933s rtkit-daemon.service
7.668s initrd-switch-root.service
7.375s abrtd.service
6.974s dbus-broker.service
6.338s lvm2-monitor.service
6.094s flatpak-add-fedora-repos.service
5.901s systemd-udev-settle.service
5.207s polkit.service
4.157s dnf-makecache.service
3.174s gssproxy.service
3.091s dracut-initqueue.service
2.653s rsyslog.service
2.552s lvm2-pvscan@8:2.service
2.447s smartd.service
2.369s accounts-daemon.service

>>>/trannycord/

not that user but i for one have encrypted setup so
; systemd-analyze time
Startup finished in 4.066s (firmware) + 2min 12.409s (loader) + 1.405s (kernel) + 11.646s (initrd) + 24.012s (userspace) = 2min 53.541s
graphical.target reached after 24.001s in userspace
>going afk for 2 mins while it was prompting me to enter passphrase and then entering passphrase

Startup finished in 3.376s (kernel) + 1.905s (userspace) = 5.281s

not bad for 11 year old X200 w/libreboot

Startup finished in 16.470s (firmware) + 3.813s (loader) + 2.602s (kernel) + 14.789s (userspace) = 37.676s
graphical.target reached after 13.728s in userspace

Because my hardisk slow :((

ah lol, I also do this so it's probably that. I noticed it once but I forgot, it takes in account the time you write in the password

'systemd-analyze time' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file.

Nigga you think THAT's bad?

My loonix is running like shit

Attached: Screenshot_2019-06-11_11-57-12.png (1018x531, 67K)

based

Startup finished in 1.132s (kernel) + 3.224s (userspace) = 4.357s
graphical.target reached after 2.775s in userspace

Startup finished in 3.921s (firmware) + 1.784s (loader) + 35.698s (kernel) + 3.811s (userspace) = 45.215s
graphical.target reached after 1.739s in userspace

wtf why? i have ssd+mint shouldn't it be faster?

Attached: __geb_mariah_and_n_doul_jojo_no_kimyou_na_bouken_and_etc_drawn_by_kotteri__76b2899976dd03c9e41fabbd9 (466x1060, 500K)