On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:41:58PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Richard Melville wrote: > > > >I would just add that running a 64 bit system on a low spec machine > >slows it down further. Experience has shown me that, in particular, > >the amount of RAM installed is very important. Other than that I've > >encountered no other problems with a pore 64 bit install. > > What do you consider a low spec system? I have built LFS on a system with > 1G of RAM several times. You just need some swap to handle a couple of > large packages (gcc/glibc). CPU speed should not be a consideration. > My first 64-bit machines were single CPU, with 1GB RAM (PC133). When I started doing that (perhaps 10 years ago), 64-bit building was fine. But over the years everything got bigger and slower. One of those machines was lying idle for a couple of years (too old to upgrade, stuck on SATA-1 [ VIA chipset :-( ], no pressing reason to dispose of it), but a few months ago I reinstated it after my A8 died. I already knew that building x86_64 with 1GB and PC133 had become painful about 4 years ago, so I started with an old 32-bit system for kernel testing. But even that was extremely painful (about an hour to build a kernel) and I discontinued it.
That box has now been stripped so that the old case might get reused. Any recent desktop using DDR3 memory will have one or more 4GB RAM sticks (although integrated graphics might use some of that), and my impression is that building 64-bit on significantly less than 3GB of RAM with recent gcc will be an exercise in pain. I do not have an opinion about building 32-bit with so-little memory, and I do not think I will build 32-bit again (except, perhaps, in qemu). ĸen -- This email was written using 100% recycled letters. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
