From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jun 11 18:26:51 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id SAA05338 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 1995 18:26:51 -0700 Received: from aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw ([140.109.40.248]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA05310 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 1995 18:26:45 -0700 Received: (from taob@localhost) by aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw (8.6.11/8.6.9) id JAA10666; Mon, 12 Jun 1995 09:26:07 +0800 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 09:26:06 +0800 (CST) From: Brian Tao To: Amancio Hasty cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: performance... In-Reply-To: <199506112032.NAA01566@rah.star-gate.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 11 Jun 1995, Amancio Hasty wrote: > > text data bss dec hex > 806912 57344 79536 943792 e66b0 > 510.885u 56.288s 10:23.50 90.9% 1118+1251k 1826+572io 208pf+0w The same kernel config that took 23 to 25 minutes in 950412 and an AMD 486DX4/100 now only takes 13 minutes with 2.0.5R and an Intel 486DX4/100. I didn't think there was that much different between the April snapshot and 2.0.5, and certainly AMD vs. Intel won't account for nearly double the speed. Same disk controller and drive in both cases. However, no complaints here. :) -- Brian ("Though this be madness, yet there is method in't") Tao taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw <-- work ........ play --> taob@io.org