compilation architecture

[Mark]

2008/1/12, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek <jakub.rusinek at gmail.com>:
> do we need to support legacy cpu's by i386 compilation?
> i586 would make fedora faster even 3 times.
> difference is noticeable.
>
> --
> Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek
>  http://liviopl.jogger.pl/
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

You really are making a fool of yourself around here.
i can't imagine that the architecture has anything to do with performance.
but this [1] will most likely explain why openSuSE is so "much" faster
than fedora.

Fedora used to use caching (preload) as well but it wasn't offering
speed improvements on default installs. more the opposite and that why
it's not in fedora anymore. Apparently opensuse has a
better/custom/other preloading system than fedora had (which was
readahead) and that's causing the speed improvements that you noticed.

If you want to do a "fair" comparison of the speed than you must run
Firefox on fedora once first (than it gets cached) and than start
measuring the speed when you open it again. i bet it will be about
equal to opensuse. I did this test a while ago with readahead and if
the readahead files have the right paths than you will notice speed
improvements in all apps that are in the readahead list.

Fedora currently has no (correct me if i'm wrong) preloading/readahead
thing started with a default install so (nearly) nothing gets pumped
into the memory to get speed improvements. They will get there once
they are started.

So fedora isn't fast or slow. it's just working without caching
programs that improve your performance.

Perhaps it's time for fedora to look how opensuse is doing this
preloading and investigate if that can be used in Fedora 9 (or Fedora
10 if 9 is feature frozen).

[1] http://en.opensuse.org/SUPER_standard_benchmark