[Wolves] What can I run on this machine?

[s parkes]

>From: Peter Oliver <p.d.oliver@mavit.freeserve.co.uk>
>Reply-To: wolves@mailman.lug.org.uk
>To: wolves@mailman.lug.org.uk
>Subject: Re: [Wolves] What can I run on this machine?
>Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 21:00:25 +0100 (BST)
>
>On Tue, 13 May 2003, Jono Bacon wrote:
>
> > --- Peter Oliver <p.d.oliver@mavit.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone have any evidence to support this?
> >
> > I would have thought it was common sense.
>
>That's a no, then? :-)
linux gazette covered this years ago 
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue37/martinez.html that supports Peter's 
arguements

although with an older machine the memory gains should provide a dramatic 
increase in effective speed of the kernel.

>
> > The new kernel would be built specifically for the machine...
>
>So?
only works if you played around with the gcc settings and actully managed to 
build a kernel after messing around with the make file.

but in the i386 archicture the subtule differences in the different 
generations of each vendors hardware may provide a little improvement but 
just because you allow 3d now! or whatever instructions to be used doesn't 
mean that the compiler will use them at all.

the kernel won't build with high levels of optimisation and might not be 
stable when it does.
>
> > also many distro kernels are full of drivers
> > you may not need such as SCSI
>
>Again, so?  Does this actually have any impact on performance?
yeah I would think that this is the largest area of improvement.  not 
including them in the kernel will result in the use of less memory and this 
is probably the biggest bottleneck that recompiling the kernel on an older 
machine could improve.

>
> > and compiled for a different processer.
>
>Not necessarily.  Distributions ship a selection of kernels for different
>CPU models.
>
agreed the kernel uses #IFDEF to include the relevent sections for different 
processors and architectures so a running kernel shouldn't have code 
optimised for another machine.  In any case the kernel doesn't really 
contain much code optimised as C source code (GCC should be trusted with 
code optimisation) and the bits of asm that remain for different processors 
and architectures wouldn't (or shouldn't) link anyway.

thats my thoughts on the isssue.

memory savings make it worthwhile, but the running code won't be improved 
vastly.

sparkes

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger