Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 05:58:02 +0100 From: Cliff Sarginson <cls@raggedclown.net> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC) Message-ID: <20021217045802.GG81755@raggedclown.net> In-Reply-To: <20021217014522.GB9273@gothmog.gr> References: <24244.1039900460@critter.freebsd.dk> <9710634521.20021214232526@dds.nl> <3DFC0AB1.D60AAF66@mindspring.com> <200212160955.14531.DavidJohnson@Siemens.com> <20021216180948.GD27912@zot.electricrain.com> <20021217002726.GA15733@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20021217014522.GB9273@gothmog.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 03:45:22AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2002-12-17 10:57, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > > On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote: > > > > > > 2) I'm scared that 5.0 is going to be unpleasantly slow on my p2-366, let > > > alone a 386. > > > > I'm running it diskless on a K6/233. I'm surprised how snappy it is. > > I still have the Pentium 133 with 64 MB or memory that I used to run > 5.0-CURRENT until a few weeks ago. I haven't got any real numbers, > but the general `feel' of the system was pretty good. Trying to build > world & kernel on a 386 though... now that's a very different story! :) > Yup. But the slowness people are noting in general is explained in UPDATING, and is quite understandable at this point in 5.0's evolution. It certainly takes a *lot* longer than 4.7 (test machine 1GHZ Pentium III, 512MB memory, SCSI disk). Also didn't someone mention that GCC has got slower anyway ? -- Regards Cliff Sarginson The Netherlands [ This mail has been checked as virus-free ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021217045802.GG81755>