Slashdot Mirror


Get Speed-Booting with an Open BIOS

An anonymous reader writes to mention that IBM Developer Works has a quick look at some of the different projects that are working on replacing proprietary BIOS systems with streamlined code that can load a Linux kernel much faster. Most of the existing BIOS systems tend to have a lot of legacy support built in for various things, and projects like LinuxBIOS and OpenBIOS are working to trim the fat.

17 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Flash drives by drivinghighway61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Speeding up BIOS processes combined with flash boot drives will seriously decrease loading time. Are we closer to instant-on computers?

    1. Re:Flash drives by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      I work with embedded systems, and my MIPS-based 166MHz board boots Linux in about 5 seconds, kernel loading starts almost immediately after power on.

      I always wanted to have the same capability for my notebook. Sigh...

  2. What about Abstraction? by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't it more important for the BIOS to present an efficient abstraction of certain hardware resources that *any* OS can easily communicate with according to a standard interface than to optimize support, possibly at the expense of flexibility and abstraction, for a single OS (even if that OS is Linux)? The violation of abstraction merely for performance improvements is something that engineers should generally be very reluctant to do.

    1. Re:What about Abstraction? by krog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Modern OSes don't trust what the BIOS tells them, due to older BIOSes that can't be trusted. With this fact in mind, you can imagine how getting the BIOS mostly out of the way can gain a few seconds at boot time without losing anything practical.

    2. Re:What about Abstraction? by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Danger! Will Robinson! Linux boxen tend to be used far longer than Windoze boxen.

      Purely anectdotal, but I see a LOT of Linux boxen that are very old running not so old Linux kernels.

      This means, over a period of time, you have a greater chance of creating a NEW Linux only legacy support issue with newer kernels running on old machines.

      This should not stop progress, but it is something that should be recognized up front.

      --
      We have always been at war with Eurasia!
    3. Re:What about Abstraction? by billcopc · · Score: 4, Informative

      You, like many others before you, are confusing BIOS with what was once called "CMOS Setup".

      The BIOS is essentially a set of low-level device drivers for the motherboard and basic peripherals (keyboard, display). Overclockers don't care about it, as long as it works.

      The "CMOS Setup", or more appropriately System Setup, is an interface to configure the motherboard's features. The fancier ones offer many tweaking options, some even have a minimal Linux OS like the Asus P5K3 Deluxe (extremely handy for pre-boot stuff - or web/media browsing). Overclockers love big feature-rich control panel on their board as they allow them to tweak their system to further heights, and offer added functionality like built-in flashing (from a USB key or hard drive) and "smart" overclocking which is like the opposite of Intel Speedstep :)

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  3. Deck chairs on the Titanic by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The majority of boot time is spent initializing drivers and bringing the system to a usable state. The 3 seconds it takes for the BIOS to init the disk, locate the MBR, load the bootloader, and jump to it is negligible compared to the tedious hardware scanning and initialization done by the OS itself when it is finally loaded by the bootloader.

    If you want to speed up the boot sequence, take a look at cutting the number of attached devices down to the bare minimum. Don't start any services during init. Do as little as possible to get the system to its usable state and you'll have minimized the boot time. Unfortunately, technology just doesn't work that way. System requirements (of both a hardware and a software nature) will require that you perform extra initialization at boot time, so any possible gains are already offset by the increased load.

    Getting off of x86 may be one way to optimize the boot process, but how many of us really have the wherewithal to make an architecture jump from x86?

    1. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by KC1P · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're absolutely right. It seems like every OS (including Linux) goes through this -- in the early days it boots much faster than the competition, but once people start routinely layering all kinds of junk on it then it starts taking minutes to boot even on super-fast hardware.

      What really bugs me is how much of the startup config is done serially. A lot of startup tasks take time, and step N+1 has to wait until step N is finished whether or not it depends on that step. It seems to me that it would be worth the trouble to mechanize startup so that each step is isolated from all the others and knows which previous step it's dependent on and waits for only that step, while everything else cruises ahead in parallel. It'd be a big change from the way things are done now but it'd be worth it. Having my system stop dead for 60 seconds on every boot just because one of the NICs is unplugged (so DHCP isn't answering) is really annoying. Same deal with Apache choking on virtual domains ... one at a time ... if the name server isn't answering. All those "wait X seconds for Y to happen" things can really add up.

      Also, Linux isn't the entire universe, and some of us really do use those legacy BIOS features. Backwards compatibility is the *only* reason the PC architecture has survived, so deciding to toss that to the wind now is just stupid. The cost is minimal (it's not like the code is going to change once it's written) and if whipping up a few tables and setting a couple of INT vectors is honestly adding dozens of seconds to the boot time, well that's just programmer incompetence, it's not the architecture's fault. The rest of the older BIOS code doesn't do anything if you don't call it, so this just sounds like an excuse to be lazy.

    2. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by Karellen · · Score: 4, Informative

      It seems to me that it would be worth the trouble to mechanize startup so that each step is isolated from all the others and knows which previous step it's dependent on and waits for only that step, while everything else cruises ahead in parallel.

      We're working on it...
      --
      Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
  4. In theory, yes. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But the problem is that the BIOS's cannot be trusted today.

    So the more advanced operating systems probe the devices themselves to see what capabilities are available.

    We've arrived at the point where we need to choose between updating the BIOS's on the motherboards every time a new capability is added (and all previous motherboards) ... or just simplifying the BIOS to the point where it can boot the OS and allow the OS to probe everything.

    It's easier to update the OS than the BIOS.

  5. I wouldn't touch this! by schnikies79 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As the subject states, I wouldn't touch this, unless it was an official release from my board manufacturer. With a bad install or software bug, I can just re-install, but a bad bios can hose the motherboard. I might try it if someone had it running on the exact same hardware, down to part #'s for the ram.

    I'm admittedly not terribly bleeding-edge when it comes to hardware or electronics, but mucking with my bios is a no no.

    --
    Gone!
  6. Disk-on-Chip Linux by RancidPickle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they could come up with a dedicated Linux Bios combined with a Disk-on-Chip setup, it would make an impressive little computer. Fast-on, perhaps with a drive or removable flash drive, and all updatable. It certainly could make an inexpensive box, and could be an ideal homework machine for the kids or a combo stand-alone box / terminal for offices. If the network went down, people could still work.

    --
    "First things first, but not necessarily in that order."
    - Doctor Who
  7. Benefits from experience by vil3nr0b · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have repaired clusters for the last two years and most have OpenBios. These are the likes: 1)Fast as hell!! 2)Easy to change options 3)Can mount the file to a disk, edit, and then replace. 4)Errors can be determined by watching console, No video needed. One serial cable, One laptop=priceless. 5)Free

  8. Open BIOS is Mission Critical. by asphaltjesus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why? Well, Trusted Platform Computing needs to start on the BIOS level in order to maintain a trusted environment. If motherboard manufacturers actually move to an always-on TPM, then OSS developers may be locked out of newer hardware.

    The mobo manufacturers will love the price versus commercial tpm and thereby limiting tpm deployment.

    That's why getting involved with these projects in particular is essential to everyone who understands the importance of computing Freedom and overall innovation.

    --
    Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
  9. To save time: by seebs · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, I don't know that much about what's happened in the field in the year and a month or so since this article went up, a month or so after I wrote it. I've been busy.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  10. why the PC is so slow to boot by Skapare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One major reason a PC is so slow to boot is the totally free-wheeling nature of attached devices. There's actually too much liberty to do bad things in device hardware. In some cases, probes to see if a certain specific device is present can cause some other device to go into a locked up state. PCs also have the complication that interrupts don't really identify the device in the same terms as how you access the device. This means we have to do things like timed waits in device probes. Ideally we should be able to discover all the devices in a computer within a millisecond for as many as 100 devices.

    We need a whole new system level (as opposed to CPU level) architecture. We need to have a uniform device address range for all devices, and a uniform set of basic commands for all devices. Then all devices in the same class (storage devices are one class, network interfaces is another class, etc) to have a common set of commands to operate the normally expected functions of that device class.

    And we really don't need a BIOS, or at least not much of one. A simple switch that lets us select between 2 flash areas to load at reset or power on would handle almost all cases. And even that's not necessary if we choose to run a stripped down boot selector program from flash that lets us select other flash areas to load. That combined with a hardware based "JTAG over USB" protocol to store new flash images when no present ones work (maybe when an on-mainboard or rear-access switch enables it) would provide any needed recovery capability.

    And why can't we have gigabytes of flash? I bought a 2GB SD card the other day for $20. Can't they put that on the mainboard? An SD slot would not only provide for a lot of capacity (way more than what you get on a CDROM), but also a means to stop writing, and a means to swap out bad flash or reload it in another computer.

    I have been working on a description document for a new architecture. It's not ready, yet, or I would post it here. But I'll try to speed it up.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  11. Speed booting??? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

    Speed boot: (noun) What we water ski behind in Canada.

    Thanks, I'm here all week. Try the veal. :-P

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.