Kwan, I would think that since that doc was written in Sept. 2001 before the new gcc was in use, that trying to optimize newer cpus with an outdated gcc lacking the options those cpus offer would not make much difference- thus the negative opinion. Apparently, cpu development outpaces versions of gcc. From what I've been reading, and by personal experience with gcc 3.2.2, it is making a difference. Of course, others strongly disagree, and maintain optimizing is a waste of time. As for myself, I'm a big fan of trying to get all I can from my hardware.
Robert Crawford On Wednesday 02 April 2003 05:48 pm, Kwan Lowe wrote: > On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 09:16, T E wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have searched the web for the answer to my question > > but have found conflicting info. So I turn to you, > > experts! > > > > What exactly are the benefits of recompling the kernel > > (besides support for new device)? > > > > I have asked this question before, and was told that > > it optimizes the system to work more efficiently. > > However after reading: > > > > http://www.mandrakeuser.org/docs/install/kupgrade.html > > > > The writer states he has never seen kernel recompling > > produce a faster machine. Other posts on the web seem > > to hint that kernel recompiling is a thing of the past > > or a signal . Whats the deal here? I've tried > > recompling before on mandrake 8.2 and have had mixed > > results. However, I noticed that you have the option > > to specify the processor type (which makes me think > > that would make it perform faster?). > > A kernel recompile won't produce a faster machine (at least, not in the > conventional sense). It can, however, make the perceived speed of the > machine seem faster. For example, some of the low latency and > pre-emptible kernel patches for the 2.4 series can improve the desktop > response. More recently, some of the scheduler changes can make simple > things like MP3 playback smoother. Keep in mind that these are patches > to the default (i.e., Linus Torvalds) kernel. Mandrake may already have > applied many of these patches so you might not gain a thing. > > Another reason may be for stability. The stable Linux kernel is just > that, stable. However, distributions often apply other patches and > features that may not have been thoroughly tested on diverse platforms. > This is not necessarily a bad thing since it makes many of the more > esoteric but useful kernel features available to the end user. In a > server environment, however, removing experimental or not as thoroughly > tested features can lead to improved stability and even better security. > (NOTE: This is not to say that distribution kernels are unstable. Unless > you're using features from a Cooker or experimental kernel, the default > Mandrake kernels have been exceptionally stable for me). > > There are also other patches that don't make it to the distributions -- > cutting edge or arcane features -- that requires a patch/rebuild. For > example, there are certain security patches that can limit problems with > user applications that can lead to breaches. Using this (as part of a > layered security setup) can reduce your risk of getting rooted. > > -- > Kwan Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
