> > I'm having the same problems with 2.1.9?. My "benchmark" is simpler and
> > more subjective than Bill's. I just rebuild the kernel. Under
> > 2.0.[29-33] on this particular machine (a 386-40 with 8M of RAM and 10M
> > of swap), it takes 3-4 hours to build a kernel. 2.1.9[1-8] couldn't do
> > it at all - they'd slow down and finally stall out before finishing
> > (maybe they would have eventually finished... I usually interrupted them
> > after a few days when the newer kernel came out). 2.1.99 is better - it
> > actually finished building the kernel, and it only took it about 7.5
> > hours. As I write this, it's doing the "make modules", and has been
> > doing so for the last 36 hours.
>
> Woah, it takes me only a hour and half to compile kernel *and* modules for
> 2.1.98 - I have a 486DX4/100 here. Since the compile process is limited by
> the bus throughput (bus, not the CPU itself, is at 33MHz), I have to
> wonder why your builds takes so long. What version of binutils/gcc are you
> using?
386's have not-too-good L1 cache (few bytes). Try to turn of L1 of
your 486 and you'll see. 4 hours is pretty goodtime, knowing that it
was 386.
Pavel
-- The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu