Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:23:18 -0700 (PDT) From: youshi10@u.washington.edu To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Optimizationn questions? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0703142023180.6819@hymn03.u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <200703150321.18033.danny@ricin.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.43.0703142023180.6819>