Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Steve Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The egcs64 in potato is flakey, the one is slink might be flakey, and > > the one in Red Hat works (it's the one in slink with some additional > > patches, the one in potato is based on a much newer egcs). The > > kernel-image package mentioned above was compiled with the Red Hat > > egcs. (When I say flakey, I mean that the resulting kernel may slow > > down and eventually die when doing intensive stuff like compiles.) > > Yurgh. Oh well -- i have your stock 2.2.9 kernel working perfectly. > Ok sure, I could probably save 200k of non-swappable RAM by compiling > my own kernel.
> I must say, X11 performance on my Ultra 5 (Rage-64) is rather > disappointing. Am I wrong in assuming that either a 64-bit X server, > or other misc. optimizations in the linux kernel etc etc. should > eventually lead to, um, I dunno, a 30% speed improvement? Or at least > better interactive performance? I note in particular that the X > server tends to really bog down under load... I doubt 64-bit code will do anything other than slow it down more. (Note that the kernel uses a special memory model, without this memory model it ran very slowly.) What kernel are you using? If you compiled it yourself, or didn't use the 2.2.9-2 kernel from potato, then the slowdowns/pauses in X are probably because of a bad code in the kernel due to a buggy egcs64. (The 2.2.9-1 kernel was compiled with the buggy egcs64.) Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
