Re: Compatible with i386/UP but optimised for i686/SMP
Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:12:16 +0200

On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 03:25:06PM +0100, Tethys wrote:

> >> Or a sysadmin, in a situation where managing different kernels for that
> >> extra bit of efficiency isn't worth the administrative overhead.
> >
> > When you need to have a single kernel for lots of similar machines,
> >they are usually UP, so compiling a SMP kernel doesn't make sense.
> Please don't generalise like this. We're rolling out dual PPros or PIIs
> on over 4000 desktops. *You* may not come across this situation often,
> but you shouldn't assume that others won't. Until the rollout is complete
> (and it's taking its time), we've got a mix of UP and SMP machines.

Point taken. But it's the wrong way to approach the problem by a ``one
size fits all'' approach. It's rather the job of a Linux distribution
makes to install the right kernel for each type of machine.

Let's take a look at Redhat's kernel stuff:

[ralf@lappi ralf]$ cd /pub/linux/redhat/redhat-5.0/updates/i386/
[ralf@lappi i386]$ ll kernel-*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 482099 Apr 17 15:26 kernel-2.0.32-3.i386.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 446195 Apr 17 15:26 kernel-headers-2.0.32-3.i386.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1229625 Apr 17 15:26 kernel-modules-2.0.32-3.i386.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6197465 Apr 17 15:26 kernel-source-2.0.32-3.i386.rpm
[ralf@lappi i386]$

Hey, kernel and module binaries for both UP and SMP would be less
that 2mb. No reason to use a inferior and more complex solution.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to