917

How much firmware is initializing??? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by DudemanJenkins@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

76 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 62 points 1 month ago

In the old days some of the servers took at hour to reboot. That was stressful when you couldn’t ping it at an hour.

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month ago

Don't say stuff like that. You're gonna give me a heart attack.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 36 points 1 month ago

The more disk you had, the longer it took. It walked the scsi bus which took forever. So if you had more disk. It took even longer.

Since everything was remote, you’d have to call hands and they weren’t technical. Also no cameras since it was the 90’s.

Now when I restart a vm or container. I panic if it’s not back up in 10 minutes.

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

I get annoyed if my pc isn't restarted in 30 seconds now.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

I think mine takes like 2 minutes. It’s ten years old. I’ve putting off upgrading to the cost of videos cards

[-] Thassodar@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

I got an M.2 drive last year after having a motherboard capable of it for 3-4 years, and naturally named it "Plash Speed".

[-] didnt1able@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

I will never not laugh at this video.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 month ago

Why would you design a disk driver that way?

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

It isn't a disk driver since the OS is not loaded yet. It is the hardware identifying each disk in the SCSI chain. Not sure what else it was doing walking the bus much I know finding all the disk was the longest part.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Shoot, it did occur to me that might not technically be the right word.

Still, even if you're an engineer in the late 80's, it seems like it would be obvious you need a way for disks to announce themselves in O(1) time. Was it just a limitation of interoperability between vendors or something?

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

I think it was just a limit of how quick everything ran back then. Also, this was an IBM system that was checked, double-checked, and triple-checked because it was a mission-critical system. IBM used to be known for quality hardware. Hard to imagine because they are such a crap company now but that was the equivalent of a google back then.

[-] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 month ago

I like how posting got fairly fast. Then we started putting absurd amounts of ram into servers so now they're back to slow.

Like we have a high clock speed dual 32 core AMD server with 1TB of ram that takes at least 5 minutes to do it's RAM check. So every time you need to reboot you're just sitting there twiddling your thumbs waiting anxiously.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

I will date myself. These machines had a lot of memory as well which added to the slow reboot. I think it was 16 gigs.

The r series for IBM took forever. The p series was faster but was still slow

[-] trolololol@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I'll date myself. My first PC had 500MB of STORAGE

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

My first pc had a tape drive.

[-] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I had a friend with one of those while I had an Atari. The Atari game would come up within a minute, but the tape took like 15 min to start.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

Using a tape drive is crazy when you think about it. It was slow…. This wasn’t the big tape cartridges. It was a standard Audio tape. Not sure why they could store but it was all sequential