kernel info question
keramida at ceid.upatras.gr
Tue Jan 25 17:35:54 PST 2005
On 2005-01-25 19:08, Andrew L. Gould wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 January 2005 05:32 pm, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> On 2005-01-25 17:15, "Andrew L. Gould" <algould at datawok.com> wrote:
>>> I'm selecting CPU types in the kernel configuration file, which
>>> lists only i386, i486, i586 and i686.
>> AFAIK, and I may be a bit wrong here, if you don't really expect to
>> move disks around and actually run this kernel on a 486-class
>> machine, leaving both i586 and i686 won't do any harm.
> Under normal circumstances, I believe you're correct. In fact the
> GENERIC kernel has all 4 CPU options un-commented.
> This machine is old and fussy; so I'm trying to trim where I can.
This particular optimization (both i586 and i686 vs. only one of the
two) will not save much (at most a few KB of kernel size), so it won't
give particularly impressive results. The i386 support (which has been
dropped in some time during the 5.X development IIRC), *does* have a
measurable impact on performance though. This is why I suggested that
with both i586 and i686 you should be pretty safe :-)
There are other things you can trim, mostly in userland, that may have a
larger impact on the hardware requirements of the base system. It would
require a complete description of the system from a hardware perspective
to decide what matters a lot and choose optimizations that may help.
> Efforts to install Win98SE, and 3 distros of Linux ended in failure.
That may be a result of other factors. Not kernel size. At least not
More information about the freebsd-questions