low latency

Adam Armstrong admin at internorth.co.uk
Wed Oct 17 22:35:18 PDT 2001


Wouldn't the processor speed make the most difference?
Compiling is very processor intensive.

Adam Armstrong
<admin at internorth.co.uk>

Sysadmin / Development

InterNorth Communications
http://www.internorth.co.uk
ADSL, ISDN, Colo, Web Hosting, Consulting
Tel. (01670) 519957


-----Original Message-----
From: blfs-support-owner at linuxfromscratch.org
[mailto:blfs-support-owner at linuxfromscratch.org] On Behalf Of Martin
Bishop
Sent: 18 October 2001 02:39
To: blfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: low latency

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:05:10 +0200
elko <elko at home.nl> wrote:

> On Wednesday 17 October 2001 20:29, Ian Molton wrote:

<cut>

> ----[ SNIP ]----
> [elko at ElkOS /proc]$ dmesg | grep proc;free -m
> Detected 851.932 MHz processor.
>              total       used       free     shared    buffers    
> cached
> Mem:           564        320        243          0         18       
> 161
> -/+ buffers/cache:        140        423
> Swap:         1533          0       1533
> ----[ SNIP ]----
> 
> and compiling a kernel only takes about 10-15 minutes now,
> instead of 50 minutes, so that's Great Fun (tm) too !!
> 
> I'm so happy ;^)

<cut>

Hi,

I hope you're kidding with that 50 minutes thing.. :) 

Even without the preempt patch, my kernel compile would only take 8-9
minutes, and I got less memory than you (256mb). My cpu is an athlon
1ghz,
but I don't think it would make that huge a diff.

I haven't timed the kernel compile after the patch so I don't know if it
has improved or not.

Please say you're kidding about the 50 minutes compile time :)
M.
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message


-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message



More information about the blfs-support mailing list