Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:49:15 -0800 From: Gary Kline <kline@tao.thought.org> To: Jorn Argelo <jorn@wcborstel.com> Cc: youshi10@u.washington.edu, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Optimizationn questions? Message-ID: <20070316234915.GA46390@thought.org> In-Reply-To: <45F9C6ED.2010306@wcborstel.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0703142023180.6819@hymn03.u.washington.edu> <45F9C6ED.2010306@wcborstel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:21:33PM +0100, Jorn Argelo wrote: > youshi10@u.washington.edu wrote: > >On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote: > > > >Dan, > > I know that this has been discussed a few times before, but IMO > >running a slightly stripped down kernel (i.e. custom, not GENERIC) > >actually proves to be helpful in increasing boot times (if options > >were added statically) and compile times if [(# of options added) < (# > >of options in GENERIC)]. > I can confirm this too. I noticed on both desktop and servers the boot > time can be decreased by stripping the kernel configuration of stuff you > don't need. I don't have any hard facts to prove this but this is what > my personal experience is. > > Jorn > > Dan, Jorn, Thanks for another tip to squeeze the last picosecond out of my elderly box! (I just began re-building gcc-43 after its 12mar07 update; it may be better at loop-unrolling than gcc-3.x. Every jot helps;) gary -- Gary Kline kline@thought.org www.thought.org Public Service Unix
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070316234915.GA46390>