Long startup due to hardcoded if-up apt-get update

[rew]

Hi Guys

I'm using Linux Lite since several years. I Love it for its performance and simple user interface.

While migrating to the latest Ubuntu 22.04 based images I've faced remarkable performance decrease for the boot process.
I've analyzed this with `systemd-analyze blame`... and on all my machines the networking-service seemed to be the problem with 25-30 seconds delay on every boot.

Digging deeper, I isolated the a seemingly pre-installed if-up.d hook: as the source. So I gain all the boot performance back with a simple

sudo chmod -x /etc/network/if-up.d/update

IMHO this is a bug. I can't understand why this should be required.
I guess each and every lite user is suffering from this. Or could it be that it derives from third-party, that I'm used to install on all these machines?
If we need a regular 'apt update' call for lite ... the if-up.d hooks seem to be the wrong location.  :error

Can we fix this in a future release?

For detailed boot analysis, see my attached .svg images in the .zip.

[trinidad]

A WIFI adapter? See below.
https://www.linuxliteos.com/forums/netwo...59979/#new
Hardware specific issue probably.

TC

[Valtam]

Could you please embed the images in your post as jpegs or pngs. People are unlikely to trust the contents of this type of zip file as it's very easy to integrate malicious code into an svg. See - https://www.linuxliteos.com/forums/intro...uidelines/

[stevef]

Topic moved to Startup and Shutdown section.

I guess each and every lite user is suffering from this. Or could it be that it derives from third-party, that I'm used to install on all these machines?

There are occasional reports of slow boot time - usually on older hardware, but I hope each and every user isn't having significant delays.  I've had a system on version 6.0/6.2 since and haven't seen this.

You mention third-party something - what is this ?

[rew]

Could you please embed the images in your post as jpegs or pngs. People are unlikely to trust the contents of this type of zip file as it's very easy to integrate malicious code into an svg. See - https://www.linuxliteos.com/forums/intro...uidelines/

Sure, here are PNG versions
https://imgur.com/a/SO4687z

Topic moved to Startup and Shutdown section.

[quote author=rew link=topic=9062.msg59993#msg59993 date=1672674683]
I guess each and every lite user is suffering from this. Or could it be that it derives from third-party, that I'm used to install on all these machines?

There are occasional reports of slow boot time - usually on older hardware, but I hope each and every user isn't having significant delays.  I've had a system on version 6.0/6.2 since and haven't seen this.

You mention third-party something - what is this ?
[/quote]

Yes, it's indeed older hardware. That's why I put linux-lite with an XFCE desktop on top of it.
With third-party I am talking about the packages I tend to install ... I don't think it makes sense to post a full list of all my deps. The question is whether this if-up.d/update script is part of the standard linuxliteos distribution or not. If it's in there ... we should get rid of it. If not, I can live with my workaround of disabling it manually

Code:

 neofetch
          ,xXc       rew@studentbook
      .l0MMMMMO      ---------------
   .kNMMMMMWMMMN,    OS: Linux Lite 6.0 x86_64
   KMMMMMMKMMMMMMo   Host: HP Compaq 6730b (NN238ET#UUZ) F.13
  'MMMMMMNKMMMMMM:   Kernel: 5.15.0-56-generic
  kMMMMMMOMMMMMMO    Uptime: 1 min
.MMMMMMX0MMMMMW.    Packages: 2709 (dpkg)
oMMMMMMxWMMMMM:     Shell: bash 5.1.16
WMMMMMNkMMMMMO      Resolution: 1680x1050
:MMMMMMOXMMMMW       DE: Xfce
.0MMMMMxMMMMM;       WM: Xfwm4
:;cKMMWxMMMMO        WM Theme: Materia
'MMWMMXOMMMMl        Theme: Materia [GTK2/3]
kMMMMKOMMMMMX:      Icons: Papirus-Adapta [GTK2], Adwaita [GTK3]
.WMMMMKOWMMM0c      Terminal: xfce4-terminal
  lMMMMMWO0MNd:'     Terminal Font: Droid Sans Mono 12
   oollXMKXoxl;.     CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo P8800 (2) @ 2.667GHz
     ':. .: .'       GPU: Intel Mobile 4 Series Chipset
              ..     Memory: 564MiB / 3824MiB
                .                               
                                           

[Valtam]

I'll do some digging, and report back.

[Valtam]

What is the output of:

Code:

systemctl list-dependencies --reverse network-online.target

Please also embed the images using the img tags, rather than linking them offsite. Thank you.
I'd also advise to not post in older threads until this is accurately identified. Cheers

[Valtam]

If this is your PC - http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press_..._6730b.pdf I wouldn't expect miracle boot times once the networking issue is resolved. Windows Vista Throw in an SSD (if possible) and tweak the boot, static IP helps a lot, and you should be in business.

[stevef]

With third-party I am talking about the packages I tend to install ... I don't think it makes sense to post a full list of all my deps.

Do you notice the problem with the boot times of the machines prior to installing your third party packages ?
If I suspected third party package may be responsible I'd be doing analysis of boot ups before and after the third party stuff installation.

[rew]

What is the output of:

Code:

systemctl list-dependencies --reverse network-online.target

Sure, here's my output. Is there anything suspicious in it?

Code:

systemctl list-dependencies --reverse network-online.target network-online.target
● ├─cups-browsed.service
● ├─hddtemp.service
● ├─nmbd.service
● ├─packagekit.service
● └─smbd.service

---

With third-party I am talking about the packages I tend to install ... I don't think it makes sense to post a full list of all my deps.

Do you notice the problem with the boot times of the machines prior to installing your third party packages ?
If I suspected third party package may be responsible I'd be doing analysis of boot ups before and after the third party stuff installation.

The boot time is evidently lost by an `apt update` call on if-up. So the third-parties that cause that delay can be best reported by the sources I'm going to look up on during this. In my case the firefox ppa is indeed a third-party. But any other repo that users may use, will cause further delays on everydays boot routines.

Code:

sudo apt update
[sudo] password for rew:
Hit:1 http://ubuntu.ethz.ch/ubuntu jammy InRelease
Hit:2 http://ubuntu.ethz.ch/ubuntu jammy-updates InRelease                     
Hit:3 http://ubuntu.ethz.ch/ubuntu jammy-backports InRelease                   
Hit:4 http://ubuntu.ethz.ch/ubuntu jammy-security InRelease                   
Hit:5 https://ppa.launchpadcontent.net/mozillateam/ppa/ubuntu jammy InRelease 
Hit:6 http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu jammy InRelease                     
Hit:7 http://repo.linuxliteos.com/linuxlite fluorite InRelease
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
9 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see them.

---

If this is your PC - http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press_..._6730b.pdf I wouldn't expect miracle boot times once the networking issue is resolved. Windows Vista Throw in an SSD (if possible) and tweak the boot, static IP helps a lot, and you should be in business.

Yes, this is my PC ... it's pretty old. The full boot time, after the fix,  is around 45 secs (including bios).

See also my plots on the actual boot time (with the fix applied of course):

Code:

Startup finished in 6.053s (kernel) + 8.989s (userspace) = 15.043s graphical.target reached after 8.962s in userspace

So I'm happy with that. And yes it has an SSD. But actually I wasn't looking for advice how to make it faster: I've measured and isolated a clear problem, and want to share with other users how to get rid of it, or even better get it fixed in the linuxliteos distribution.
At any rate, we all know that a call of `apt update` doesn't come for free regardless of the disk. The more repos we're contacting the more this command delays the actual boot performance. We're making a real-world network operation.

My latest boot time measures are attached: today I only waste 10secs with it ... looks as if it highly depends on the activity on my network. What about if I'm connected to a slow network, having DNS problems, or a slow link, or using a slow mirror? The boot time will decrease almost beyond limits ... without any value for me as a user. That is not even a problem of old hardware ... but one of having a fast link to the web + mirrors.