LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
LinkBack Search this Thread
Old 09-28-2010, 12:29 PM   #16
mlpa
Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Aveiro
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 467

Rep: Reputation: 33

Alien prove that Slackware runs in i486.
But it would be interesting to see a Slackware i586 in a very similar machine but with a processor i586 to see the difference in time for some jobs.
 
Old 09-28-2010, 12:57 PM   #17
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,112

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlpa View Post
Alien prove that Slackware runs in i486.
But it would be interesting to see a Slackware i586 in a very similar machine but with a processor i586 to see the difference in time for some jobs.
Go ahead, be my guest.
Rebuild Slackware twice in its entirety and run benchmarks. Then publish the results here.

Eric
 
Old 09-28-2010, 01:14 PM   #18
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Bob View Post
As a test, I installed Slackware 13.1 in a Virtual machine with the virtual CPU set to emulate an i486 (qemu-system-x86_64 -cpu 486 -vga std -m 512 ....).
Wait a minute here, that means you gave it 512 MB of RAM ... how likely is this on a 486 ?

Last edited by H_TeXMeX_H; 09-28-2010 at 01:20 PM.
 
Old 09-28-2010, 01:26 PM   #19
Lufbery
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Distribution: Slackware 64 14.0
Posts: 1,139
Blog Entries: 29

Rep: Reputation: 119Reputation: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
Wait a minute here, that means you gave it 512 MB of RAM ... how likely is this on a 486 ?

32 MB of RAM is easy enough to test with QEMU-KVM. I may even try it this weekend.

I'm glad to see some some attempt at a poll of users on this subject. I did something similar a few years back: How old are your Slackware computers?

At least in 2007, 33% of users who responded had computers older than seven years. Still, those computers would probably be at least Pentiums; most of them, anyway.
 
Old 09-28-2010, 01:34 PM   #20
nick_th_fury
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Distribution: Slackware, NetBSD
Posts: 147

Rep: Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Bob View Post
Go ahead, be my guest.
Rebuild Slackware twice in its entirety and run benchmarks. Then publish the results here.

Eric
Hehe, Well that's nail on the head. I really wish Pat would just go ahead and do it. Just because some extremely small niche of Slackware users either do, or might 'want' to run Slack current on a 486 should not hold back progress. Letting other Os's pass us by is kind of ridiculous IMO.

Older hardware, run an older version. I don't see users demanding the latest OSX to build on their Macintosh IIci. Or Win7 on a 486. At least we can run a much better OS on that older hardware. In fact, Linux & Slack are probably the best at it. But the 486 days are long gone, and it's so long in the tooth it's just not worth it.
 
Old 09-28-2010, 01:55 PM   #21
Darth Vader
Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Romania
Distribution: DARKSTAR Linux 2008.1
Posts: 553

Rep: Reputation: 103Reputation: 103
I think we do a very old mistake here, because we are talking about an abstract processor. Unfortunately, there is a whole system which must run a modern Slackware ...

A typical system i486: is a 25 or 33 MHz processor, 16 or 32 MB RAM and 40 MB or 250 as hard. And I forgot to tell that the video card has no more than 1MB or 4, and it is not 3D.

Is this system able to run smoothly a Slackware desktop? I doubt, because only the X server, now consumes 32.2 MB, in my Slackware Current.

Not to mention that for installing Slackware, it requires at least 128MB of RAM ...
 
Old 09-28-2010, 02:07 PM   #22
mlpa
Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Aveiro
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 467

Rep: Reputation: 33
Darth Vader I think your opinion is correct.
A i486 computer is to old to run future releases of Slackware.

I think we are only delay the change to i686.
 
Old 09-28-2010, 02:24 PM   #23
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266
So I guessed right ? I guessed at 16-32 MB, I didn't know for sure so I edited it out of the last post.
 
Old 09-28-2010, 02:34 PM   #24
Darth Vader
Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Romania
Distribution: DARKSTAR Linux 2008.1
Posts: 553

Rep: Reputation: 103Reputation: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
So I guessed right ? I guessed at 16-32 MB, I didn't know for sure so I edited it out of the last post.
Yeah! You guessed right...
 
Old 09-28-2010, 03:06 PM   #25
lumak
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2008
Location: Phoenix
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 799
Blog Entries: 32

Rep: Reputation: 109Reputation: 109
Where are you pulling your stats from for the 'average' i486 machine? Is that a desktop or a server? I would think that a server would have a much higher chance of supporting more ram. Even an i486 processor has 32bit address space that would support 4 gigs of ram.
 
Old 09-28-2010, 03:40 PM   #26
gnashley
Amigo developer
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,724

Rep: Reputation: 449Reputation: 449Reputation: 449Reputation: 449Reputation: 449
As Alien Bob pointed out, making the change is no trivial matter. Of course PatV and the team are all up to the task, but I don't think the improvement would be worth it for most users.

What I mean is this: there is much more performance gain to be had from simply re-compiling your kernel to match your CPU, than there is to be gained from recompiling everythig to match later CPU's. Most of the hefty imporovements are actually in the i386-to-i486 step. i586 would be a bad choice because it is commonly problematic to cross-compile for i586 (BTW, we *are*, techincally speaking, talking about a cross-compile here). So i686 would be a better choice.

Still, only users who do heavy sound/video editing would notice much difference. As Alien Bob said, anyone who feels themselves capable should put in the time to do the job -although they might as well create a fork if they really can do it. The current i486/i686 setup already takes advantage of any later CPU features if they are available. Simply re-compile your kernel for i686 and you already have an i686 system.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-29-2010, 02:54 AM   #27
business_kid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 5,953

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 496Reputation: 496Reputation: 496Reputation: 496Reputation: 496
I see the present setup, and it works. What concerned me to be honest was that i486 was not mmx capable, and mmx does provide benefits. Libjpeg, and libtiff are i486 and surely that is a case where block copies and moves are relevant. I'm not bothered going to assembly language to check out what's happening. If Slackware32-13.2 is i686 as a result of this thread, that will be a considerable achievement.

It should also prompt a kernel revision. When Slamd64-12.2 came out, my laptop had a poor time on the kernel. Kernel recompile took about 2 hours(!). I grabbed the fedora (9?) config and started with that, and got a kernel compile down under 15 minutes. Checking through the kernel, I found that every 32 bit bugfix that was ever contemplated had found it's way into the 64 bit kernel, and no k8 optimisations were included. I wrote to Fred Emmot and urged him to fork his 64 bit kernel, which he did. Compile times also came down under 15 minutes, and my own kernel was fastest of the lot at around 13 minutes.

If improvements like that were available on 64 bit, it seems reasonable to expect that a kernel for i686 would also bring improvements. The RZ1000 and similar bug fixes could be dumped, as video cards that should never have seen the light of day, etc.

For the record, my 1994 laptop (mentioned in post #1) was very fast - a 486/DX-100, with no more than 16 MB of ram. I do have to hand a pentium 120 in working order, w/32Megs of ram. I keep it to run dos and an old program to drive my Analogue Signature Analyser. The software simplky refuses to run on K6 or above. It will not run i686 code. But it will firmly test if Slackware loads on such a machine if none closer hardware can be found. Please allow me till the weekend to give it a try, as things are v. busy for me right now.
 
Old 09-29-2010, 05:16 AM   #28
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266
I think moving to i568 would not alienate any users, but would it be worth it ? performance-wise and the amount of work it would take ?
 
Old 09-29-2010, 09:47 AM   #29
Petri Kaukasoina
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 241

Rep: Reputation: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
I think moving to i568 would not alienate any users, but would it be worth it ? performance-wise and the amount of work it would take ?
You could try to compile a favourite application of yours for i586 and benchmark it! For example, I use a lot of time running gzip while making daily backups, so I benchmarked gzip. If the default CFLAGS (-march=i486 -mtune=i686) gives a baseline speed of 100, then march=i386 mtune=i686 gave 91 (on P4) or 101 (on i7), march=i586 mtune=i686 gave 101 (on both P4 and i7) and -march=i686 gave 103 (on P4) or 105 (on i7). On the other hand, a 64-bit binary gave 114 (on both P4 and i7).

(Gzipped a tar file of 111 MB ten times to /dev/null with each binary on two computers. gcc was version 4.4.4)
 
Old 09-29-2010, 10:04 AM   #30
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266
Yeah, I have noticed a significant improvement for most apps on x86_64, but much less of a difference with any kind of optimizations on 32-bit, something minor like you found.

Maybe the best way is just to leave slackware as is and encourage those who seek performance to use 64-bit version.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Using Slackware As a Router In A 486 Box Woodsman Slackware 18 08-02-2006 02:41 PM
What version of Slackware for a 486? digital_nite Slackware 7 09-29-2005 06:04 PM
Identifying CPU/Architecture for GCC Optimisations detly Linux - Hardware 3 04-27-2005 09:44 PM
Linux FOR old laptop 386/486 CPU w/ no CD rom drive studpenguin Linux - Laptop and Netbook 6 04-25-2004 09:57 PM
setting up SETI on 486 with slackware umdkappy Linux - Newbie 1 02-04-2004 02:09 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration