[plug] Microsoft ask users to crack win2000 site (fwd)

[John Summerfield]

> Mike Holland wrote:
> 
> > Amen. A consequence of feature-bloat, backwards compatibility, ...
> > 
> 
> Just out of interest, what baggage is linux carrying? It has backward
> compatibility to the i386 architecture obviously. Is this problem
> entirely solved by being able to select the code you want to go into the
> kernel, when you configure?
> 
user  :  10d  1:29:39.47  14.9%  page in : 64055040  disk 1:    77231r  
406489w
nice  :   8d 20:17:51.67  13.1%  page out: 50621158  disk 2:  2777821r 
8393763w
system:   6d 12:09:12.44   9.6%  swap in :  5096182  disk 3:  6850927r 
4138321w
idle  :  42d  3:33:02.26  62.4%  swap out:  2301514  disk 4:      392r     
  0w
uptime:  67d 13:29:45.82         context :684169456





Assuming all the system time's kernel, to reduce its overhead would have 
little overall benefit; for what users actually do, optimising X would be 
better. In my case, there might be some advantage in optimising perl - it 
consumes most of the user and nice values above: that's where real work's 
done.

In this context, I refer to gnerating CPU-specific code with compiler 
options. Better algorithms will always beat compiler optimisation, as 
would upgrading the CPU: that box has a P133: the M/b can take up to 
P233MMX and equivalent clones.



-- 
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://os2.ami.com.au/os2/ for OS/2 support.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.