*BSD News Article 69910


Return to BSD News archive

#! rnews 2365 bsd
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!inquo!bofh.dot!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!sollube.sarenet.es!news
From: Borja Marcos <borjam@we.lc.ehu.es>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.0 on 386DX20 w/12MB Slow...  Normal?
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 21:19:59 +0200
Organization: SAREnet, S.A.
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <31AF465F.2781E494@we.lc.ehu.es>
References: <4oiog4$9od@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: infovia-b-16.sarenet.es
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.1.0-RELEASE i386)

Takafumi Kamiya wrote:
> 
> I just installed FreeBSD 2.1.0 on 386DX20 machine with 8MB on motherboard and
> 4MB on 16bit bus.  Disk is 120MB IDE (access speed should be around 15ms)
> 
> To start with, it took me over 4 hours to install, and after install everything
> seems awfully slow.
> 
> Is my machine too slow for this OS?  (I have seen sco running on similar
> machine much faster....)
> 
> I just wanted to play with FreeBSD.  I don't intend to use X or any other power
> hungry apps, but if my machine is struggling with just running OS, I must think
> of upgrading the motherboard before doing anything.

	I'm using FreeBSD 2.1R at two machines. One of them is
a 486DX2/66 and the other is a 386DX25. Of course the 486 machine is
faster, but the 386DX is at a friend's design studio supporting a WWW
server (only used for testing pages and such things) and it's going to
be used soon as a proxy to connect a pair of Macintoshes to Internet. It
also executes my SED and AWK scripts to modify lots of HTML pages quite
well.

	It's a machine with 64 K cache, and 8 MB RAM. The disk is an IDE drive.
I used SCO Unix some time ago in the 386 and FreeBSD's performance is
better.

	Does your motherboard have a cache? 

	I think the memory with 16 bit access is affecting performance.


	Borja.

-- 
***********************************************************************
Borja Marcos			* Internet: borjam@we.lc.ehu.es
Alangoeta, 11 1 izq		*	    borjam@well.com
48990 - Algorta (Vizcaya)	* CompuServe: 100015,3502
SPAIN				*
***********************************************************************