14 Oct
2002
14 Oct
'02
12:40 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Tothwolf once stated:
I tried compiling a 2.4 kernel for one of my systems (static compilation,
no modules---I tend to forgoe modules for servers) and it was (with the same
settings) about twice the size as the 2.0 kernel I'm currently running. My
486 systems are a bit tight with memory so that is a concern for me.
And yes, I did a RedHat on 120MB (okay, more like 112MB---had to use 8M
for swap 8-) but like I said, it wasn't something I'd like to repeat any
time soon.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
Hrm, this is getting a little OT isn't it?
Well, most 486 systems are on topic, and the Linux 2.0 kernel is about
half-way to being on topic so ...
Hmmm, Linux
2.0 will run fine on such a system, although getting it
installed (personally I use RedHat 5.2) is a bit tricky; I did get it
installed on a laptop with 120M harddrive and 4M RAM (although it took
the better part of a day and wasn't for the feight of heart---details if
anyone wants them).
I have 486 boxen running both 2.2 and 2.4 kernels, which seem to work much
more efficiently than the ancient 2.0 kernels. As far as distributions go,
Debian seems to be better suited for installs on small hard drives, but I
managed an install of RedHat on a 120MB drive once (and I swore I'd never
do it again). The 2.2 and 2.4 Linux kernels support IRQ sharing, so
it should work "OK"
so long as you don't attempt to run the shared ports at very high baud
rates.
What about the hardware?
-spc (Thought the PC hardware didn't allow sharing of IRQs ... )