[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Sarge, kernel-image, and i586-SMP



Steaphan Greene wrote:

>On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:56:15PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>  
>
>>Steaphan Greene wrote:
>>    
>>
>
>I would not mind it being slow.  However, since there seems to be
>absolutely no SMP support for 586 OR BELOW, I must roll my own or ignore
>one of my processors.  That's what bothers me.  Even a 386-smp kernel
>would be fine by me.  I just would like to be able to automagically
>update my stable kernel whenever needed (like I do on most of my other
>machines).  This machine is intended as my stable machine, not my
>workhorse (obviously), and I'd like to not have to give it too much
>though to make sure it was stable and secure.
>
>...besides, ever compiled the current kernel on a 586? ;)
>
>  
>
I'm not sure if there even was SMP and 386s. I think that only during
the PentiumPro era did SMP get better implementation (i686). Anyway, the
386 kernel is sooo slow on a 586 (in comparison with the 586 optimized
kernel) that you have to recompile it unless you want your box running
at 50% its maximum speed (KDE is very slow on Pentium MMX on 386 kernel,
but usable with optimized kernel).

I know that building all of the modules and drivers on Athlon 2000+,
takes well over an hour (or two, can't remember). But compiling a kernel
with only the modules for your hardware reduces this to something like
5-10 minutes.


>Yes, I know I could compile it on another machine and make a package,
>I'd just like to not have to.  Is there a reason this kernel flavor is
>ignored (is it just because they are rare?)?
>  
>
I think it is just because it is rare and each kernel image is about
30MB on mirrors. Remember when Debian had K6, 586, 486, etc.. optimized
kernels? Getting rid of them reduced the number of CDs by one :)

- Adam

-- 
Building your applications one byte at a time
http://www.galacticasoftware.com




Reply to: