On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Abhinav Chaturvedi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > I am new to LFS and I started on it because I want to create an optimized > distro for dual > core processors for myself. I am trying to see whether I can create a distro > that would boot faster and run faster > than the OpenSuse-11.1 I have installed on my machine. Eventually I would > like to share my work with people too (after doing BLFS of course). > > The whole thing will take me a lot of time. And so, I was wondering if > someone could tell me: > 1. Whether distros like Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSuse also follow LFS/BLFS > steps to create their versions of Linux.
In.. a sense. Nearly all major linux software's built using the same basic approach that's done by hand in *LFS, but in most distros it's built using some predefined automation that then moves on to packaging it for 'install' though their package management tools. > 2. What are some obvious optimizations for dual core processors that I > should remember to include? Well, this and 4 go hand in hand... but the basics, focus on software that handle threading efficiently (and safely), since any piece of software that does will very easily make use of multiple cores. Most of the real work you'll need to focus on for optimization, preserving backwards compatibility, is in the configuration of the kernel... most important, SMP and whatever combination of scheduling algorithms proves most efficient. > 3. Once the LFS/BLFS system is made, how do I package it into a .iso DVD? There's a hint or three on how to make a 'livecd' system, which handles one part of what you're looking for, but you'll also need an 'installer', which tends to a) be package manager dependent and b) tends to be designed around the particular needs of a given distro. > 4. What could be the downside of creating a super-optimized (for speed) > distro? Could there be issues > with backward compatibility perhaps? The more specifically optimized a compiled piece of software is, particularly where cflags are concerned, the less broad a range of systems it can run on... so while -march=prescott will optimize specifically for an sse3 capable intel processor, it won't likely run on an amd, and it very likely won't run on anything older than a prescott chip pentium4. This, of course, is one of the two prime places that a typical binary based distribution falls short compared to LFS, Gentoo, and any other source based distribution. The other place is in the level of control over the build time options chosen on each individual piece of software... a binary distro can't offer every package with every combination of options that the upstream source code offers, so they have to offer a 'widest range' build that'll satisfy the needs of the majority, and the same is true when it comes to any sort of optimization, which is why until a few years ago, given the *time* to make it work, you could run many binary distros on a 386 processor (most if not all have raised the cutoff point to 586+ I think). > I am sorry if my questions are too broad. But I don't know enough to ask > really precise questions. Hence, please bear with me. > > Thanks > Abhinav. > > > -- > It's the peoples' will, I am their leader, I must follow them. (Jim Hacker > in Yes Minister) > > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-chat > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page > Also, you get extra points for coming very close to "Now if you'll just bear with me..." http://xkcd.com/365/ -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-chat FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
