LinuxQuestions.org
Go Job Hunting at the LQ Job Marketplace
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

View Poll Results: What architecture do you run Slackware on ?
i486 8 4.57%
i586 16 9.14%
i686 95 54.29%
x86_64 122 69.71%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 175. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Search this Thread
Old 09-28-2010, 01:24 PM   #31
mlpa
Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Aveiro
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 467

Rep: Reputation: 33

Hare you saying that a Slackware recompiled with i686 optimization will have the same performance?
 
Click here to see the post LQ members have rated as the most helpful post in this thread.
Old 09-28-2010, 01:48 PM   #32
tobyl
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: uk
Distribution: slackware current
Posts: 743

Rep: Reputation: 48
x86_64 here.

Interesting poll, but I suspect the results are skewed in favour of x86_64 and the newer processors. I imagine that there are many x86_64 users who drop by linuxquestions quite frequently (to catch up on flashplayer and other compatibility issues etc) and would see the poll. I can also imagine that there are i486 workhorses out there whose owners have less reason to keep up with the latest news, and dare I say it, don't participate regularly on this forum.

tobyl
 
Old 09-28-2010, 01:50 PM   #33
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
Hare you saying that a Slackware recompiled with i686 optimization will have the same performance?
No, I am saying that it is pointless for Slackware to add another 32-bit version of the distro. It adds nothing of value and only takes away precious time in maintaining it.

Eric
 
Old 09-28-2010, 03:06 PM   #34
rg3
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Distribution: Slackware Linux
Posts: 498

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
IMHO, compiling Slackware for i686 instead of i486 makes complete sense. It would improve performance a bit for i686 users, an architecture supported by most computers out there, and i[45]86 users would still have older Slackware releases that are still maintained. However, it's simply not the time to do it. It could have been done a few years ago, but now it makes no sense. Today we're sold x86_64 machines and an x86_64 version of Slackware exists, which improves performance much further. If you want performance and taking full advantage of your architecture, use that version. If performance is not your worry, the difference between i486 and i686 is so small that the advantage of knowing the distribution will run on almost any 32-bit machine you could find today surpasses the benefits of rebuilding the system, even if at incremental steps, for i686. Not worth the effort. If Slackware64 didn't exist, things would be different, but it's not the case anymore.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-28-2010, 03:29 PM   #35
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,112

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
IMO it is rather pointless to bother. It is just as rg3 says, if you want performance you should be running Slackware for x86_64.

If you need Wine to play World of Warcraft, but refuse to go multilib on Slackware64, then just install Slackware 32-bit. You will certainly have a PC that is beefy enough that you do not have to be bothered with performance gains when march=i686 is applied.

Read http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/ce...ne/006063.html which has a nice performance breakdown for all the different values of march and mtune. This bit is interesting:

Code:
--march=i686

Offers little performance gain over --march=i486 --mtune=i686,
while not running at all on an i486 or i586.
And that is exactly why 32-bit Slackware is going to remain as-is.

Eric
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-29-2010, 04:46 AM   #36
Petri Kaukasoina
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 241

Rep: Reputation: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Bob View Post
if you want performance you should be running Slackware for x86_64.
But to get the top performance, you might then want special Slackware distributions compiled with -march=nocona or -march=core2, depending on whether your 64-bit intel processor is a p4 or something newer. In addition, you would need three different distributions for 64-bit AMD cpus. Hmm...
 
Old 09-29-2010, 05:13 AM   #37
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Bob View Post
IMO it is rather pointless to bother. It is just as rg3 says, if you want performance you should be running Slackware for x86_64.
Yes, that is true. The performance difference is probably larger between 32-bit and 64-bit than between i486 and i686.

As for optimizing per processor, that is unlikely, and I doubt it will increase performance by much.

If you care that much about performance, install Gentoo not Slackware.
 
Old 09-29-2010, 06:06 AM   #38
pwc101
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,846

Rep: Reputation: 128Reputation: 128
I'd rather retain support for i586, mainly because I have an AMD Geode which is i586:
Code:
pwc101@serv:/srv/wd> uname -a
Linux fillimon 2.6.33.4-smp #1 SMP Wed May 12 21:39:37 CDT 2010 i586 Geode(TM) Integrated Processor by AMD PCS AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
pwc101@serv:/srv/wd> cat /etc/slackware-version
Slackware 13.1.0
I also have a desktop with x86_64 running -current.

Last edited by pwc101; 09-29-2010 at 07:10 AM. Reason: formatting
 
Old 09-29-2010, 06:10 AM   #39
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,112

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petri Kaukasoina View Post
But to get the top performance, you might then want special Slackware distributions compiled with -march=nocona or -march=core2, depending on whether your 64-bit intel processor is a p4 or something newer. In addition, you would need three different distributions for 64-bit AMD cpus. Hmm...
Thanks for showing how pointless the exercise is :-)
Maintaining even more versions of the same distro is not going to pay for Pat's daily bread. Sales of Slackware is not going to rise but the required effort will double.

Eric
 
Old 09-29-2010, 06:40 AM   #40
sahko
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2008
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,041

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I dont think anyone ever suggested maintaining two 32bit distributions.
 
Old 09-30-2010, 03:47 PM   #41
folkenfanel
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: formerly Fanelia and Zaibach
Distribution: Slackware-current with KDE 4.8.5
Posts: 299

Rep: Reputation: 35
Wink I generally compile my own glibc which is i686-optimized

and usually set properly optimized cflags in my slackbuilds, not to mention that I compile my own kernels, which I usually distribute to relatives -some of them quite capable to compile a kernel, but too lazy to do it. So in the end we have a Slackware-based distro at home. (I changed the penguin logo with the Slack logo... couldn't resist... )
 
Old 09-30-2010, 05:04 PM   #42
molhar
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 36

Rep: Reputation: 1
This is why I love Slackware! Let's face it -- I don't notice any speed difference in actually using apps when testing out other i686 distros than with stock x86 Slack. A "slightly" faster boot and ten-second faster shutdown (on Ubuntu & Trisquel) doesn't impress me at all. And look at what you have to go through to get that. I mean...ech.

There's nothing (other than knowledge) stopping anyone from recompiling for i686. It will preserve Pat&Company's precious resource of Time and everybody Gets What They Want without having to go all LFS.

As far as antique hardware...my dad used my original 1983 IBM PC (with the 8088 proc and 64k ram) to do his monthly rental house invoices as recently as late 2007. Never replaced the cmos battery (yet) or anything -- which is really amazing.

(I can just imagine some guy with a VAX 11/730 in his basement waiting to top this post.)
 
Old 10-05-2010, 11:14 PM   #43
foodown
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 607

Rep: Reputation: 218Reputation: 218Reputation: 218
Code:
adam@hercules:~$ uname -a
Linux hercules 2.2.26 #3 Tue Apr 6 04:20:31 CDT 2004 i486 Intel 80486DX2 GNU/Linux
adam@hercules:~$ cat /etc/slackware-version
Slackware 4.0.0
It does DNS and SMTP. It was also my router and firewall for a long time, but it can't keep up with network throughput anymore. Plus, my internet connection is 14Mb, and the only two ISA NICs I have are only 10Mb.

The hard drive is backed up, and it's on its third or fourth drive. The BIOS can't even address 20% of the drive, but it doesn't really need to. The original drive that the system was installed on back in 1999 was only 512MB. Otherwise, it's all 1990s hardware.

It will NEVER run any newer software, except when Sendmail and BIND patches come out, or if somebody ever were to patch the 2.2 kernel again.

Last edited by foodown; 10-05-2010 at 11:52 PM.
 
Old 10-11-2010, 06:14 PM   #44
dracolich
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,173

Rep: Reputation: 47
Both my desktop and laptop (not my netbook) use AMD Athlon CPUs, 1.2GHz and 1.5GHZ respectively. Both run Slackware 13.1. I know they're old but they still suit my needs and thanks to Slackware and Fluxbox I never feel pressured to upgrade.
 
Old 10-11-2010, 07:34 PM   #45
animeresistance
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 189

Rep: Reputation: 19
I use 2 machines, a pentium III with 933 GHz with Slackware 13.1and the other one AMD ATHLON 2.8 GHz with Slackware 64 13.1

Old bones with less old bones ... LoL
 
  


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
what is 'architecture' in 'binary for an architecture'?multiple architecture support? wagaboy Linux - Newbie 2 07-10-2010 11:18 AM
Proposed Hardware for HA-NAS Server on Slackware Linux zordrak Linux - Hardware 4 07-06-2009 10:49 AM
openSUSE 11.1 i586 on i686 Architecture tak.rliu Suse/Novell 1 01-29-2009 12:47 PM
Whats the best way to switch IP Addresses between servers in a redundant architecture helptonewbie Linux - Newbie 2 08-26-2008 12:14 PM
i686 vs i386 instruction architecture Earth Linux - Newbie 1 06-08-2005 09:18 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 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