>
> Perhaps. But that supposes that compiling with --march=pentium4 makes
> much difference with gcc. I don't doubt it would make a real difference
> with the Intel compiler but my own experince with gcc (admittely on PII
> and PIII) makes me sceptical about it.
>
>
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 18:42, John wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Tesla 13 wrote:
>
> > > > Even if I don't gain anything, I just don't want my binaries to run on a
> > > > bloody 386 SX. Period.
> > >
> > >If procinfo shows 91% idle (as it does on my Athlon), then how much is
> > >there to gain? 10
On 13 Dec 2002, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 04:02, Gary Sandine wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 19:42, John wrote:
> > > However, if you wish to persist with building everything yourself, the
> > > the project for you is "Linux from Scratch."
> >
> > Perhaps Gentoo is m
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 00:21, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
> > Perhaps Gentoo is more appropriate in this case than Red Hat?>
> <
> Perhaps. But that supposes that compiling with --march=pentium4 makes
> much difference with gcc. I don't doubt it would make a real difference
> with the Intel com
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 04:02, Gary Sandine wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 19:42, John wrote:
> > However, if you wish to persist with building everything yourself, the
> > the project for you is "Linux from Scratch."
>
> Perhaps Gentoo is more appropriate in this case than Red Hat? It's not
> as e
> btw if a dual P4 isn't good enough, try dual Athlon. Apparently Athlons
> eat Pentium IVs; sometimes even Durons outperform them.
Dual P4 = dual Xeon, and a dual Xeon will thump on any dual Athlon
system in any task I can think of.
It used to be the case that uni-Athlon in general outperformed
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 19:42, John wrote:
> However, if you wish to persist with building everything yourself, the
> the project for you is "Linux from Scratch."
Perhaps Gentoo is more appropriate in this case than Red Hat? It's not
as extreme an approach as LFS, but with Gentoo, one can easily co
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Tesla 13 wrote:
> > > Even if I don't gain anything, I just don't want my binaries to run on a
> > > bloody 386 SX. Period.
> >
> >If procinfo shows 91% idle (as it does on my Athlon), then how much is
> >there to gain? 10% of 9% is bugger-all.
>
> I CPU used is about 3%. But
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Tesla 13 wrote:
> >Mind you, a lot can easily be gained if you have a lot of computers.
>
> 32 to be exact!
Better than 1, but I think you need hundreds, not tens, to get a
payoff.
However, optimising some few packages - XFree, your preferred wm, OOo if
you use it may be wor
> Even if I don't gain anything, I just don't want my binaries to run on a
> bloody 386 SX. Period.
If procinfo shows 91% idle (as it does on my Athlon), then how much is
there to gain? 10% of 9% is bugger-all.
I CPU used is about 3%. But that really is not the point as I explained
above.
Did
Mind you, a lot can easily be gained if you have a lot of computers.
32 to be exact!
Jimmy
_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Tesla 13 wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> >What on earth do you hope to gain?
>
> Even if I don't gain anything, I just don't want my binaries to run on a
> bloody 386 SX. Period.
If procinfo shows 91% idle (as it does on my Athlon), then how much is
there to gain? 10% of 9% is bu
On 12 Dec 2002, Florin Andrei wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 14:09, John wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Tesla 13 wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to adapt a Redhat 8.0 system to Pentium 4. The binaries, data,
> > > files and everything will be used, run and compiled on P4. I have no issue
> > >
On 12 Dec 2002, Florin Andrei wrote:
> On a very busy web server, it makes sense to optimize httpd, but the
> rest is a waste of time.
>
>
Even then, I'm doubtful. More likely the bottleneck is the network
interface.
btw if a dual P4 isn't good enough, try dual Athlon. Apparently Athlons
eat
Hello John,
What on earth do you hope to gain?
Even if I don't gain anything, I just don't want my binaries to run on a
bloody 386 SX. Period.
It will takes days, maybe weeks on a single machine.
gcc + glibc + kernel takes a mere 3 hours on my system to compile (2.66 GHz
P4 OCed to 3.0, mo
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 14:09, John wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Tesla 13 wrote:
> >
> > I would like to adapt a Redhat 8.0 system to Pentium 4. The binaries, data,
> > files and everything will be used, run and compiled on P4. I have no issue
> > with compatability and I do not need anything to
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 05:29, Tesla 13 wrote:
>
> I would like to adapt a Redhat 8.0 system to Pentium 4. The binaries, data,
> files and everything will be used, run and compiled on P4. I have no issue
> with compatability and I do not need anything to run on a 386, Pentium or
> PIII -- only P4
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Tesla 13 wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> I would like to adapt a Redhat 8.0 system to Pentium 4. The binaries, data,
> files and everything will be used, run and compiled on P4. I have no issue
> with compatability and I do not need anything to run on a 386, Pentium or
> PIII --
Hello Folks,
I would like to adapt a Redhat 8.0 system to Pentium 4. The binaries, data,
files and everything will be used, run and compiled on P4. I have no issue
with compatability and I do not need anything to run on a 386, Pentium or
PIII -- only P4.
Is there a location where I can read a
19 matches
Mail list logo
