Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Dec 2017 19:22 UTC
Android

Today, we are excited to announce Quick Boot for the Android Emulator. With Quick Boot, you can launch the Android Emulator in under 6 seconds. Quick Boot works by snapshotting an emulator session so you can reload in seconds. Quick Boot was first released with Android Studio 3.0 in the canary update channel and we are excited to release the feature as a stable update today.

There's a quite a few other improvements and new features, as well.

Thread beginning with comment 652256
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

gilboa,

Your comparison is invalid on three counts.

A. Kernel boot time has nothing to do with storage performance and has everything to do with the complexity of you call a "PC". While the C64 had very limited set of devices that were initialized from ROM, a modern kernel needs to support 1000 upon 1000 of CPU types, chipsets, devices, etc. Most of them with unbelievably complex initialization sequence. If you don't believe me look at the driver source code of modern GPUs or 25/40/100 GbE network devices.


In all honestly most of the complexity is bloat. Even linus torvalds has acknwoledged linux has a bloat problem. Android is tuned for very specific hardware. If the kernel on your android phone does "support 1000 upon 1000 of CPU types, chipsets, devices, etc.", then whoever built it did a pretty bad job in trimming it down to only the hardware present on the device. Know what I mean? The build it supposed to be optimized for that specific hardware.

B. The amount of optimization that goes into the kernel these days is million miles ahead of type-a-couple-of-1000s-of-ASM-LOC and shove them into a ROM that was used to design the C64.


Arguably not true by performance per clock...

C. Same goes for file systems, system services, network services, etc.


Sure, but it doesn't explain why the overhead is so much greater.

D. That said, you are completely correct when it comes to user facing applications (GUI, web applications, business applications, etc).

- Gilboa


IMHO it's true of most code.

Reply Parent Score: 1

gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

In all honestly most of the complexity is bloat. Even linus torvalds has acknwoledged linux has a bloat problem. Android is tuned for very specific hardware. If the kernel on your android phone does "support 1000 upon 1000 of CPU types, chipsets, devices, etc.", then whoever built it did a pretty bad job in trimming it down to only the hardware present on the device. Know what I mean? The build it supposed to be optimized for that specific hardware.


The OP in this sub thread was comparing C64 to a PC. He wasn't talking about Android, nor was I.


Arguably not true by performance per clock...


Actually, The amount of rows/sec PostgreSQL -on- Linux can store or index is billion years a head of any database that existed in the C64 or even the early PC days. Even if you generate odd matrices such as rows/sec per Mhz or rows/second per disk RPM, the performance difference is simply staggering.
Same goes for networking (packets/sec per Mhz) and graphics (triangles/sec per Mhz).


Sure, but it doesn't explain why the overhead is so much greater.


Sure it does.
Back in the C64 or even in the XT days, a graphics card was nothing more than a dual ported memory chip.
Today a graphics card is a hugh-SMP CPU that's expected to push billions of vertices and handle complex requests simultaneously. How can you possibly expect to continue program such a beast by calling 'int 10h'?

Networking is no different. How can you possibly compare a C64 modem that was barely cable of pushing 1200bps via the simplest of interfaces (serial port) to a multi-PCI-E 100GbE network device that includes smart buffering, packet filtering and load-balancing?


IMHO it's true of most code.


Being a system developer I can't say that I care much for user facing code ;)

- Gilboa

Edited 2017-12-21 13:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

gilboa,

The OP in this sub thread was comparing C64 to a PC. He wasn't talking about Android, nor was I.


The actual OP was likely speaking generically, but never the less we can talk in terms of PCs if you like. Do you have any reason to believe there's less bloat on PCs?

Sure it does.
Back in the C64 or even in the XT days, a graphics card was nothing more than a dual ported memory chip.
Today a graphics card is a hugh-SMP CPU that's expected to push billions of vertices and handle complex requests simultaneously. How can you possibly expect to continue program such a beast by calling 'int 10h'?

Networking is no different. How can you possibly compare a C64 modem that was barely cable of pushing 1200bps via the simplest of interfaces (serial port) to a multi-PCI-E 100GbE network device that includes smart buffering, packet filtering and load-balancing?


The memory mapped devices are significantly faster than the legacy PIO ones, and on top of this the bus speeds have increased dramatically. Hardware initialization time is so fast that a stopwatch would be too slow to measure it. Most time is a result of software deficiencies. While complexity can contribute to software deficiencies, it's not the inherent cause of slowdowns on modern hardware that you are making it out to be.

One problem is that network drivers, graphics drivers, audio drivers, printer drivers, usb drivers, etc come in packages of 10-100+MB, which is quite unnecessary and can end up causing delays and consuming system resources unnecessarily. At least modern SSDs are so fast that they help mask the worst IO bottlenecks caused by bloat, but alot of it is still happening under the hood.



I appreciate that fast hardware is considered much cheaper than optimizing code. However there's little question that legacy programmers were writing more optimal software, that's really the gist of what we're saying. It was really out of necessity since on old hardware they couldn't really afford to be wasteful like we are today.

Reply Parent Score: 1