I suppose that if you're not running anything on the system, that will make it faster. But is it really worth not being able to run any X applications?
Originally Posted by SurferIX
Maybe I didn't express myself properly : the OS is a Debian, and is 50 % faster than a classical distro, which means if it takes 3 minutes to do one thing on a classical distro, it will take 2 minutes on my PC.
Admittedly I know very little about this, but I suppose reading duplicate disks could increase the speed. But I can't imagine writing the same data to two disks would be faster than writing the same data to one disk.
Moreover, I've got 2 x 250 Gb hard drives that are replicated by the OS itself (one of the hot new stuff in the latest kernel), and when it comes to read, the kernel reads from both
disks, resulting in a 25-30 % speed up (sorry for my English it's so poor). Same from writing, which makes small copies of files instantaneous
Unless you mean, for example, every even byte is stored on this disk, and every odd byte on the other . . . .
I find that hard to believe, especially since Apache is several hundred thousand lines long.
Compiling the latest Apache took less than 20 seconds.
Compiling the latest Php took less than 12 seconds !!
This is just incredible how fast is it.
That means your system is, what, 30 times faster than that, assuming you were compiling approximately the same amount of source code? . . . .
'''It takes time!!!''' Do NOT interrupt the process with a '''ctrl-c''', it does not work.
Either wait or kill the process. If you kill it, you will be better cleaning up the directory
before retrying the command, there are a lot of meta-files created.
+ So have a coffee. Forget about your micro-wave oven, don't use instant coffee. You have
plenty of time (10 minutes at least) !
+ Total: 357319
What does "time <command>" tell you? If it only takes 20 seconds, you won't mind redoing it, will you?