Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:49:24 +0200 From: "Norbert Koch" <NKoch@demig.de> To: "Nikolas Britton" <nikolas.britton@gmail.com>, "=?iso-8859-1?B?S/Z2ZXNk4W4gR+Fib3I=?=" <gabor.kovesdan@t-hosting.hu> Cc: FreeBSD - Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: FreeBSD 6 Message-ID: <001a01c59277$535d15a0$4801a8c0@ws-ew-3.W2KDEMIG> In-Reply-To: <ef10de9a050726171649b6869@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As far as -O2 as the default for the kernel... I thought it was more > important to have a small kernel then a faster but fatter one. The > smaller the kernel the more you can put in L1,2, and 3 cache and the > smaller the program the less it needs to hit ram, swap, and hard disk? Just my opinion. I am not sure if, under realistic conditions, -O2 is better than -Os. Norbert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001a01c59277$535d15a0$4801a8c0>