[rescue] RE: WinNT/2K/98/95 "up times"

[Ken Hansen]

Isn't it actually a different HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer), not a
kernel?

Just picking nits....

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua D. Boyd" <jdboyd at cs.millersville.edu>
To: <rescue at sunhelp.org>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [rescue] RE: WinNT/2K/98/95 "up times"


> NT guys still need different kernels.  You just don't have to recompile
> them.
>
> --
> Joshua Boyd
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Brian Hechinger wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 01:51:42AM +0100, Paul Sladen wrote:
> > >
> > > I know this might be a bit /strange/ to you Solaris and NT guys; but
have
> >
> > well, more to the NT guys, back in the old BSD days we rebuilt kernels
as well.
> >
> > > you considered recompiling the kernel.  My Dual PPro200 (before the
VRM
> > > blew up) could do it in 6 minutes with `-j3'.
> >
> > we had a Dual PPro200 setup a couple years ago that could tear through
an
> > entire 'make world' in FreeBSD in under 20 minutes.  it has more to do
with
> > the way you layout the disks than it does the CPU power.
> >
> > > I also can't see why Mandrake would want to ship a Uni-processor
kernel;
> > > perhaps you might like to try a real distribution like Debian
www.debian.org.
> >
> > because SMP support on a Uni-processor machine incures overhead that
doesn't
> > need to be there.  i've done (and i've seen other people do and populate
web
> > pages with info from) testing proving that running an SMP kernel on a
non SMP
> > box is a huge waste of clock cycles.
> >
> > although the copy of redhat we had at half.com came with both an SP and
MP
> > kernel (that didn't stop me from rolling my own though)
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > -brian
> > _______________________________________________
> > rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> > http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue