From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <40C6469E.2010703@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue,  8 Jun 2004 16:07:10 -0700
From: Matt Pidd-Cheshire <axwrt001@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] It's not like lightning is it ...
References: <40C639DD.9000701@yahoo.com> <015d01c44da6$54eee9f0$9b7f7d50@SOMA>
In-Reply-To: <015d01c44da6$54eee9f0$9b7f7d50@SOMA>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 99562d6c-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

boyd, rounin wrote:

> how long does it take to boot to lunix?
sure, FreeBSD takes longer than 9

> how long does it take to compile the lunix kernel?
never timed them

> tried:
> 
>     size 8c gcc

meaning optimisation?

sure gcc is a whopper, 8c diminutive.

default gcc switches were used to compile, but not explicitly with 
-funroll-loops -fexpensive-optimizations -m686 -O3 ... et cetera.

gcc produces fat binaries and uses many tricks
but an AVL tree ain't a complex peice of code, aside from branch
optimisations and registerising pointer dereferences I see little
for the compiler to chew on.

is kfs the bottleneck? I don't know for sure, maybe there are
things I can do to tune kfs up. Perhaps naively I'm assuming
that once booted, most other things are equal. kfs doesn't seem
to use all of the unassigned RAM as a disc cache, but in this case
it wouldn't matter anyway. I realise 9 is distributed but this is
my living room setup not a lab.

if all this sounds incredibly naive, feel free to enlighten me.

<sorry, my posts are taking time to get out; so I get replies
out of sequence.>