[huskerlug] Re: Kernel Question
- From: James Worrest <jworrest@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: huskerlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:47:29 -0500
Thanks for the detailed reply. I think SuSE 7.3 info said I should
have a 500MHz processor and something like 128 Meg of RAM now in one
computer I exceed both of those requests, and two are only 300 MHz but I do
have 256 Meg of RAM. This seems to give me adequate speed. The one that
has the 90+ Meg of RAM is also a 300 MHz computer, and I think it will behave
adequately.
However I have a couple of computers only in 200 MHz with 32 Meg
of RAM, so I not quite as happy with the pudgy kernel thing. I hope
recompiling kernels is easier than in the 2.0.xx days. ---Jim
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 02:06, you wrote:
> I don't know what distro you are using but I have been able to compile
> REALY small kernels if I just compile a lot as Modules and I only load
> what I really need. Modern distros (I use RH7.2) add a lot of stuff
> that is not needed to cover all possible scenarios of installation. I'm
> pretty sure if you recompile your kernel you can get it to be smaller.
>
> I think that part of the problem is size of the code. I've heard that
> if all the debug code is taken out of the kernel it becomes much
> smaller. The 2.4.x kernel has a lot more stuff in there so it would be
> beefier then the 2.2.x just because of code size, or at least that's my
> understanding.
>
> Can I get some help here?
>
> -Cesar Delgado
> ---------------------------------------------
> Scientific Visualization
> Secure Distributed Information @ UNL
> http://molebio.unl.edu
> cdelgad2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, beettlle@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: huskerlug-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:huskerlug-
> > bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Worrest
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:41 AM
> > To: huskerlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [huskerlug] Re: KDE 3.0&Kernal Question
> >
> >
> > This much more of a kernel question than it is about KDE.
>
> However,
>
> > I sometimes I think sometimes change is introduced for change sake.
>
> KDE
>
> > 1.0,
> > worked well enough for most things. Patience, which probably works
>
> on a
>
> > lot
> > of GUI's has been much improved over the last several years.
> > My real question why does the 2.4.xx kernel take up so much more
> > memory than the 2.2.xx kernels. Is it for journal file systems or SUB
> > operation, or what? I know my 2.2.xx could run quite comfortably with
>
> 32
>
> > meg
> > of RAM and the 2.4.10 kernel that comes with SuSE doesn't really
>
> start
>
> > operating well with KDE until I have 90+ megs in a computer. I do
>
> have
>
> > some
> > computers with less than 90 megs of memory and like to have a well-
> > working
> > GUI on those "low" memory system. ---Jim
> >
> > ----
> > Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
>
> ----
> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
Other related posts:
- » [huskerlug] Re: Kernel Question
