From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Oct 26 20:51:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14443 for questions-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 20:51:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions) Received: from citytel1.citytel.net (root@citytel1.citytel.net [204.244.99.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14436 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 20:51:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kwoody@citytel.net) Received: from mybsd.net (citytelprct48.citytel.net [204.244.99.124]) by citytel1.citytel.net (8.8.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA22998; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 20:57:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 20:18:24 -0800 (PST) From: Kwoody X-Sender: kwoody@mybsd.net To: Greg Lehey cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kernel In-Reply-To: <19971027115910.42524@lemis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > the kernel? It is 400k smaller. It was 1.2 meg now its a wee bit > over 800k. > > That's a small kernel. I'm surprised you were able to remove that > much from it. But I can't see that it should make much difference to > the performance. I have a very basic system. 486/66 vlb hd controller, mach32, sony cdu31a and a kingston combo card running in ne2000 mode and 20 megs ram. I acutally added ktrace, tcpdump and snp (though watch still errors out) to the kernel config file. Double checked and kernel size is actually 860k. > It's more likely that your probes are taking the same time, but > they're not timing out on non-existent hardware. Yes thats probably true, but it sure does boot alot faster now! But it seems that everything that was working before still works, and thats the main thing. Keith