From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 15 22:46:58 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13FAA16A400 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:46:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jorn@wcborstel.com) Received: from mail.wcborstel.com (wcborstel.xs4all.nl [82.93.93.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9E913C455 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jorn@wcborstel.com) Received: from mail.wcborstel.com (mail [10.0.0.2]) by mail.wcborstel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4DB434294; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:23:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.wcborstel.com (Postfix, from userid 58) id 33B5443427C; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:23:31 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on mail.wcborstel.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Report: * -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.3 MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR URI: Includes a link to a likely spammer email Received: from [192.168.1.6] (unknown [192.168.1.6]) by mail.wcborstel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FE2434254; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:23:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45F9C6ED.2010306@wcborstel.com> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:21:33 +0100 From: Jorn Argelo User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: youshi10@u.washington.edu References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Optimizationn questions? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:46:58 -0000 youshi10@u.washington.edu wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote: > >> On Thursday 15 March 2007 02:16, Gary Kline wrote: >>> Two quick one for kernel and/or compiler wizards: first, is >>> a 400Mz processor considered a 586 (for my KERNELCONF file)? >> >> Think its 686 (but really, leaving 486 and 586 in isn't going to slow >> down >> booting or anything!) I always say: Use GENERIC unless you have a >> good reason >> not to. >> >>> Second, is it safe to do a buildworld with -O3? If there are >> >> No. It's not supported if things break. >> >>> stability concerns, I'll go with the default when I rebuild my >>> 6.2 systems. >> >> The defaults should be fine. Also, like I said consider just using >> GENERIC and >> load the odd kmod if needed. Generally it's less headache and equal >> performance. >> >>> thanks in advance, >>> >>> gary >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dan > > Dan, > I know that this has been discussed a few times before, but IMO > running a slightly stripped down kernel (i.e. custom, not GENERIC) > actually proves to be helpful in increasing boot times (if options > were added statically) and compile times if [(# of options added) < (# > of options in GENERIC)]. I can confirm this too. I noticed on both desktop and servers the boot time can be decreased by stripping the kernel configuration of stuff you don't need. I don't have any hard facts to prove this but this is what my personal experience is. Jorn > > I like being able to compile my kernel on my P4 in less than 10 > minutes anyhow with less options :). The only thing that was brought > up earlier (sometime later last year in a thread--I think either Oct > or Nov) is that removing options removes flexibility as well. But > that's a tradeoff you have to make. > > -Garrett > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >