[digest-mode reply]
Subject:
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: CFLAGS CPU optimization question.
From:
Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:
Tue, 31 May 2005 15:08:30 -0300
To:
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Sorry for taking this long to answer.
I suggest any unprivileged port
Sorry for taking this long to answer.
I suggest any unprivileged port that has no other service attached to
it (I use 8022 on some machines). Script Kiddies won't event know it
is there, or will try to hammer it with a wrong protocol, which will
be useless.
Of course, I might be wrong. If so,
What port do you suggest (sorry for hijacking this thread!)?
On 5/27/05, Raphael Melo de Oliveira Bastos Sales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Change the sshd port, the hammering will be smaller...
2005/5/27, Mark Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Walter,
thanks for the useful tip. I've been
On Friday 27 May 2005 12:16, Bastian Balthazar Bux wrote:
Changing port is not about security, it save cpu (that can be true using
RSA auth only too).
The question, though, is whether changing the port is worth the hassle. If
you're getting 1000 SSH attempts per day, and each connection
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 08:50:29AM -0400, Mark Shields wrote
Walter,
thanks for the useful tip. I've been looking to increase the
efficiency of my server (Athlon XP (Thorton), 2400+ (2ghz), 133 fsb,
512mb pc2100), especially since now I've been looking at my log files
I've noticed it's
On 5/26/05, Walter Dnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion is cpu-specific
flags. Try doing a cat /proc/cpuinfo and see which of the flags are
allowed in gcc. mmx, mmx2, sse, sse2, sse3 and various other stuff will
speed things up. If you have
On 5/24/05, Thomas Kirchner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And for goodness sake, don't use the ridiculous CFLAGS suggested by some
others. You'll have so many problems down the road you won't know what
to do with your system. Good ole -O2 -march=whatever
-fomit-frame-pointer produces fast, stable
On Tue, 24 May 2005 08:54:54 +0200 Julien Cayzac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Not to mention that no devs (and few users) will help with anything
| if you use more CFLAGS.
|
| I wouldn't expect any support with the flag mentionned above switched
| on. However, I would at least expect a upstream
Thomas Kirchner wrote:
* On May 23 17:45, Walter Dnes (gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
Currently, I use "-march=i686" for my 3 machines, a P4, a PIII, and a
PII (and a partridge in a pear trg).
"i586 is equivalent to pentium and i686 is equivalent to pentiumpro."
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 03:04 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
-funit-at-a-time
For what it's worth, according to man gcc, -O2 turns on -funit-at-a-time.
Robert Crawford
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On 5/24/05, Robert Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what it's worth, according to man gcc, -O2 turns on -funit-at-a-time.
Yup. Too bad every single Makefile in the world compiles c/c++ source
files one by one :-/
Julien.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Julien Cayzac wrote:
On 5/24/05, Robert Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what it's worth, according to man gcc, -O2 turns on -funit-at-a-time.
Yup. Too bad every single Makefile in the world compiles c/c++ source
files one by one :-/
Wouldn't MAKEOPTS set to at least -j2
Colin wrote:
Julien Cayzac wrote:
On 5/24/05, Robert Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what it's worth, according to man gcc, -O2 turns on
-funit-at-a-time.
Yup. Too bad every single Makefile in the world compiles c/c++ source
files one by one :-/
Wouldn't MAKEOPTS set
Richard Fish wrote:
Colin wrote:
Julien Cayzac wrote:
On 5/24/05, Robert Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what it's worth, according to man gcc, -O2 turns on
-funit-at-a-time.
Yup. Too bad every single Makefile in the world compiles c/c++ source
files one by one :-/
14 matches
Mail list logo
