On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 04 April 2008 01:50:02 am Ivan Savcic wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Chris Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > > > Ivan Savcic wrote: > > > | Sorry for that personal message, I misclicked. It wasn't aimed at you > > > | specifically. > > > > > > Apology accepted. I am sure most everyone, myself included, has made > > > similar > > > mistakes. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > | When Debian Etch was released, I wanted to give Debian a shot again in > > > | some server scenarios, because of it's stability, security and ease of > > > | upgrading. I now deeply respect the concept of "stable", having been > > > | through security-through-bleeding-edge concept of Gentoo, for example. > > > | Long End of Life of stable Debian seems priceless. Yet, on the other > > > | hand, Backports filled the gap caused by some oldish packages and in > > > | general there are a lot of packages for people to use. > > > > > > I remember the days of Sarge. I used backports then, as well as > > > compiling source. Why? Is it that I have a lot of time on my hands? > > > No. It is/was to > > > streamline the package, and optimize it for my processor. The main > > > problem with precompiled distros, IMHO, is that because the packages, > > > especially the > > > kernel, have to run on a multitude of different systems, they tend to be > > > larger > > > and slower than if you compile those packages, optimized for your > > > system. > > > > Luckily, there are AMD64 and IA64 flavors of Debian. Shame there > > aren't (stable?) versions for i686, Athlon and P3/P4. > > Do you have evidence that would justify this thinking? Debian already has > packages optimized for sub-architectures, but only for the packages it > actually makes a difference on. Optimizing the entire distribution is a > waste of DD time, and mirror diskspace for truly epsilon gains.
Long time passed since I was messing around with that, but give it a shot yourself with Acovea[1], or if you manage to fix it, ccbench[2]. Way back, on my Gentoo Linux, I have concluded that -O2 makes a difference compared to -O1 and i686 --mcpu/--march makes a difference compared to i386. --fomit-frame-pointer also produced faster binaries. [1] http://www.coyotegulch.com/products/acovea/ [2] http://www.rocklinux.net/people/clifford/ccbench/ccbench-0.2.tar.bz2 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
