Is systemd-boot faster then grub?

Do the .conf examples from here work or requires EndeavourOS changes?


It is faster, but the bootloader barely takes any time to begin with so it probably won’t be noticeable.

Yes. You may want to change the “title” but it isn’t a requirement.

Exactly my reaction. The boot loader part of the well… boot is what? 0.5 seconds? Getting it down to 0.4 seconds seems… more hassle than it’s worth :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Welcome aboard mono!

1 Like

Ok, i checked systemd-analyze:
Startup finished in 16.226s (firmware) + 1.319s (loader) + 5.244s (kernel) + 2.056s (userspace) = 24.847s

What does firmware include and are there logs i could check for errors?

Im dualbooting Windows in under 5 seconds on the same hardware, if a lightweight OS like Endeavour takes more then 5 times, something gotta be going wrong.

not if windows is at default to fast boot ie suspend are you using a hdd or SSD. what are you using KDE gnome office.
The thing is Humans have not evolved enough to mind read please give every piece of info on your system. their are some good programs out their i’m not wasting my time spoon feeding users, their is a exellent wiki for that, Gnome here takes 7 secs to boot to a working desktop desktop windows non fast boot takes about 15 to working desktop on a 8 year old desktop with a SSD.

If you are on KDE you should check out haveged. Install it via pacman and start/enable the haveged.service.

All of that takes place long after the bootloader has done it’s work.

If what @csteinforth suggested doesn’t help, please share the output of the following commands:

systemd-analyze blame
systemd-analyze critical-chain

Its XFCE, but i dont care about tweaking the DE for now.
@Dalto, are you sure that (firmware) is running before (loader) because the results of systemd-analyze critical-chain dont look like firmware related to me?

I am not sure what exactly is included in each category there. I think firmware is the time it takes the BIOS to load which is being pulled from EFI variables.

Mines a bit slower.

[ricklinux@eos-plasma ~]$ systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 15.580s (firmware) + 11.947s (loader) + 2.204s (kernel) + 1.352s (userspace) = 31.084s reached after 694ms in userspace
[ricklinux@eos-plasma ~]$ 

[kelvin@kelvin-b85md2v ~]$ systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 2.590s (kernel) + 6.830s (userspace) = 9.421s reached after 6.821s in userspace
[kelvin@kelvin-b85md2v ~]$

This is a new install on a 8 year old machine

You don’t have the firmware or loader times so I am guessing that is a non-UEFI install.

Wow … I am using refind so it may be taking longer than just using grub?

Your total time is more comprehensive and includes more so the total isn’t comparable. If you want to compare you compare your kernel+userspace to his.

How do i do that then?

Edit: 2.204s (kernel) + 1.352s (userspace) ? + 11.947s (loader)?

Exclude loader as well.

no its UEFI the motherboard is a fast starter, firmware does not show does not show. Total time to a working desktop is under 7 secs with auto login

I am not sure why those are excluded from yours if you aren’t legacy booting. I was under the impression that firmware and loader times came from EFI variables. Perhaps your older motherboard doesn’t support…something?

No matter how fast your machine is the time it takes for those isn’t 0.

1 Like

I totally agree with you on that it is older, boot may be fast but the rest is not only has a old i5 and i’m not into mine is faster than yours but 7 secs to a working desktop is not bad. The last AMD board was newer and pitifully slow to boot so all this is really different board to board and means nothing, comparing to windows is also pointless as windows is more than likely in fast boot that will slow Linux down a fair bit as the drivers are wrong on boot times.