I recently had to put a 1GHz Pentium-III "Coppermine" in service.  One of 
several things, it is for testing my previous LFS-7.10 build.  I built all 341 
packages in two systems, i686 and x86-64.  The i686 version runs fine on my 
Core2-Duo systems, but I wanted to check that it runs as advertized in a "real" 
i686 with no extra instructions on the side.

In my definition of "general operations" it works well enough, but don't run 
Libre-Office.  I had patched the kernel up to LTS 4.1.42, and had to rebuild it 
for the i810 hardware.  Duration: just short of 2 hours!

I call that a "heavy lift".  So my question morphed into: when does i686 
hardware just lack the horsepower to "run" modern, i.e. kernel-3.x or 
kernel-4.x, LFS systems?  On what does it make sense to abandon i686?  Most 
public distros did that some time ago, but obviously I keep lots of old 
hardware around with some attempt at functionality.  I have a functional 2GHz 
Pentium-4 "Northwood" box, so I copied the drive for the Coppermine box and 
slipped it in.  (The CPU flags include HT, but trying an SMP/HT kernel can't 
find it.)

Compiling LFS-7.10 linux-4.1.42 duration: ~52 minutes.

Other systems on the drive/box:

Compiling LFS-7.7 linux-3.10.107 duration: ~22 minutes.
Compiling LFS-7.2 linux- duration: ~18 minutes.

So, as I now work through LFS-8.1, and read the options in building gcc and 
other places, it seems to me kernel 4.x-based software has just gotten too 
"heavy" for i686 to be a reasonable build.

I leave it up to LFS-devs to decide when to take it out of the book.  As much 
as I regret it, it's probably about time, so I won't.

p.s. I still hope to get Meltdown/Spectre patches for linux-4.1.x i686 builds.

Paul Rogers
Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates."
(I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-)
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to