On 2005-01-25 19:08, Andrew L. Gould wrote:
On Tuesday 25 January 2005 05:32 pm, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2005-01-25 17:15, "Andrew L. Gould" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm selecting CPU types in the kernel configuration file, which
lists only i386, i486, i586 and i686.
AFAIK, and I may be a bit wrong here, if you don't really expect to
move disks around and actually run this kernel on a 486-class
machine, leaving both i586 and i686 won't do any harm.
Under normal circumstances, I believe you're correct. In fact the
GENERIC kernel has all 4 CPU options un-commented.
This machine is old and fussy; so I'm trying to trim where I can.
This particular optimization (both i586 and i686 vs. only one of the
two) will not save much (at most a few KB of kernel size), so it won't
give particularly impressive results. The i386 support (which has been
dropped in some time during the 5.X development IIRC), *does* have a
measurable impact on performance though. This is why I suggested that
with both i586 and i686 you should be pretty safe :-)
There are other things you can trim, mostly in userland, that may have a
larger impact on the hardware requirements of the base system. It would
require a complete description of the system from a hardware perspective
to decide what matters a lot and choose optimizations that may help.
Efforts to install Win98SE, and 3 distros of Linux ended in failure.
That may be a result of other factors. Not kernel size. At least not
so much.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
