Is it really this bad with 32/64/128/256 megs? Anyone have a 128 Meg
machine that they can try a "make -j bzImage" on with both kernels? I'm
interested in those results.
-Shawn
<=========== America Held Hostage ===========>
Day 2007 for the poor and the middle class.
Day 2026 for the rich and the dead.
915 days remaining in the Raw Deal.
<============================================>
On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Peter Enderborg wrote:
> A small test off the kernels on my old 486 with 8Mbyte..
> I have tested to compile the 2.1.109 kernel with the 2.1.109 and with
> 2.0.34.
> The system is unpatched rh5.1, everything is on the local disk expect
> for the source
> tree. Witch is on a RH5.1 NFS server.
> Results:
> Linux dural 2.1.109 #7 SMP Sun Jul 19 10:58:01 MEST 1998 i486 unknown
> real 14516.13
> user 6134.95
> sys 1099.97
> pme@dural$
>
> Linux dural.ampr.org 2.0.34 #1 Fri May 8 16:05:57 EDT 1998 i486 unknown
> real 11507.25
> user 5807.26
> sys 1107.00
> pme@dural$
>
> 14516/11507=1.2614930042
>
> 26% longer time on the new kernel.
> Is that good or bad ?!
>
> --
> foo!
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html