The SPUs seem to become VERY irrealistic

Florian Hess (FLoH) hipabos at
Fri Oct 18 17:17:16 PDT 2002

Bill maltby - LFS Related schrieb:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Florian Hess (FLoH) wrote:

> You have a tough wait ahead of you. Here are some timings from when I ran
> on a Cyrix Pr-166 with 64MB and 256MB swap. This was *before* static and
> gcc-3.X. Using gcc-3.X added over 2 hours on an IBM6x86-II (Cyrix-II) 300
> with 256MB PC-133 SDRAM and 256MB swap.

Now at the legendary time of 01:40a, 10/19/2002, I stopped my LFS 
compilation per ^C because of a lack of patience. I'll even my LFS 
partition down and acquire a full Debian Woody distribution.

May it be that I was a little bit absent of reality, compiling a lfs 
on a p150?
However, it was worth trying! Congratulation to Gerard Beekmans for 
rising this project! I learned much about Linux.

But, as a conclusion, something's confusing me: Gerard thought his SPU 
value to provide a relative base to appreciate compile times, and he 
tested this relation on many systems as he say. But it was not 
relative in my case: it exceeded 2,5h by far (6h until aborted).

> Chapter09/Batchrun01
>    Run rebooting end          Sun May 12 08:30:08 EDT 2002
>    PasswdDft: start           Sun May 12 08:30:07 EDT 2002
>                               ----------------------------
>                                                   00:00:01
>                               ============================
>                                                   10:32:21

base of SPU = 892sec gave a sum of 16h in my case.

> What? You are not used to it yet?  ;)

the tack-tack of the hard disk is much more irregular than the 
tick-tack of the alarm-clock. I'd have trouble to sleep well or would 
dream I had to eat up all the compiler's output lines.


Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-support' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-support mailing list