Re: 5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC)

2002-12-17 Thread Nick H. -- Technical Support Engineer
Message - From: Cliff L. Biffle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:29 AM Subject: Re: 5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC) On Tuesday 17 December 2002 12:19 am, Garance A Drosihn wrote: At 5:58 AM +0100 12/17/02, Cliff Sarginson wrote: Also

Re: 5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC)

2002-12-17 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2002-12-16 23:24, Gary Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:45 AM 12/17/2002 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: I still have the Pentium 133 with 64 MB or memory that I used to run 5.0-CURRENT until a few weeks ago. I haven't got any real numbers, but the general `feel' of the system was

5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC)

2002-12-16 Thread Greg 'groggy' Lehey
On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote: 2) I'm scared that 5.0 is going to be unpleasantly slow on my p2-366, let alone a 386. I'm running it diskless on a K6/233. I'm surprised how snappy it is. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To

Re: 5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC)

2002-12-16 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2002-12-17 10:57, Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote: 2) I'm scared that 5.0 is going to be unpleasantly slow on my p2-366, let alone a 386. I'm running it diskless on a K6/233. I'm surprised how snappy it

Re: 5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC)

2002-12-16 Thread Gary Stanley
Read the top of /usr/src/UPDATING Explains most of the slow problems. At 03:45 AM 12/17/2002 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2002-12-17 10:57, Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote: 2) I'm scared that 5.0 is

Re: 5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC)

2002-12-16 Thread Cliff Sarginson
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 03:45:22AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2002-12-17 10:57, Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote: 2) I'm scared that 5.0 is going to be unpleasantly slow on my p2-366, let alone a

Re: 5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC)

2002-12-16 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 5:58 AM +0100 12/17/02, Cliff Sarginson wrote: Also didn't someone mention that GCC has got slower anyway ? gcc is slower at compiling things. This is very noticeable when you're doing a buildworld. The code which gcc 3.2.1 produces does not seem any slower than the code produced by gcc

Re: 5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC)

2002-12-16 Thread Cliff L. Biffle
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 12:19 am, Garance A Drosihn wrote: At 5:58 AM +0100 12/17/02, Cliff Sarginson wrote: Also didn't someone mention that GCC has got slower anyway ? gcc is slower at compiling things. This is very noticeable when you're doing a buildworld. The code which gcc 3.2.1