How long does it take to compile the kernel on a slow machine?
 

Ok, i know the performance gain is gonna be almost imperceptible... but im up to do it... ONLY if it is not gonna take forever... so thats why im doing this thread...

I have a K6-300 MHz with 64 MB of RAM...


Can you give me an approached time??? 30 min??? 1 hour???



PS: I think I'll compile the 2.4.29 version.

I think it takes about 20 minutes on my Athlon XP 2000+. I can remember waiting a couple hours when I did it on my 400 Mhz box, but that was kernel series 2.2.x, so compile times may have changed.

Once you get the config process out of the way, you can run everything in one command and let it run while you'll be away.

The process differes slightly between 2.6.x and 2.4.x, so search for the correct commands. Then join all the commands with "&&" like this:When that's all done, then copy the kernel image and System.map to /boot, reconfigure LILO and reboot. Search for exact instructions on how to re-compile the kernel.

It's really not hard, it'll just consume a lot of your computer's time. Run it overnight if you have to.

I did a kernel build and it took like 5 minutes when I did make the rest is really short so I would say 1 hour unless you have the kernel packed with stuff.

kernel compile time
 

Way back when chips were made of wood..........

Once upon a time a long time ago, I had a 386-33 running Slackware 3.something I think, anyway
IIRC it took about two days to compile the kernel.

But then, I don't remember too well according to my wife.

I have an array of such machines...
Of course it depends on how many modules, etc, but it'll probably take 1-1.5 hrs for the kernel and maybe 3-4 hours for the modules, and even make deps will probably take 30 minutes.
With more RAM these times would improve considerably. But, my main machine is a PII 333MHz and it seems that performance doesn't improve much above 300-400MB RAM. What I mean is that the processor becomes the bottle-neck above that.

Kernel compile times aren't really that bad.

I can't really help you with an estimate, but here's a guide;

http://savetheneighbor.6.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=20

if he started compiling when he posted,....he'd be done by now....
and also know how long it takes... :)

egag

You can actually compile the kernel on a faster machine and tranfer the bzImage, .config and System-map over.

Oh wait, if you use this method, don't use module. :) I know you can transfer the modules as well. But I haven't done it before.

compile on faster box
 

I have often thought of doing this, but never got around to it.

So, this evening I wiped my laptop with Slack 10 (2.4.26) and did a fresh install of the plain 2.4.26 kernel.
Sometime this evening I'll compile a custom kernel for it on another box and transfer the stuff that carboncopy
mentioned.

After it's done, I will post the results.

carboncopy is right
 

I Just did as carboncopy said, except I didn't move the System.map file over, and it works.

on a Dual 2.8GHz HTXeon 400MHz fsb box it took 5 min and 35 sec to make bzImage
This while processing two Folding@Home work units. The F@H work units didn't show
any sign of processing slower because of this compiling activity.

Thanks carboncopy for getting me in gear, I have wanted to do this for some time.

The dual Xeon box is the most powerful box I have, and I always need a special kernel for other slower units.
And really don't like to compile a kernel on the laptop due to the heat and the fan noise that goes
with the process. The laptop has a 2.4GHz P4 and it runs hot as *%@^ just by being turned on. :0

Re: carboncopy is right
 

Great! Well, the last time I did it. I use a Athlon-XP 1800 to compile a tiny kernel for AMD K6-2, in fact I even did a kernel for Pentium 100MHz.

I never copy the .config and System-map though. :)