Re: static vs modules
Quoting Jon Pennington (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> > > > I was wondering if there is a speed/operating difference when compiling
> > > > kernel daemons like knfs static in the kernel or in modules.
> It depends on what you're talking about. Take, for instance, the Intel EtherExpressPro100 (eepro100) network card. Loading it as a module on a HEAVILY laden web server exposed a major weakness in the overall robustness of the card. The card started dropping packets and causing collisions under only 50% of what the interface would have been capable of if it were built-in to the kernel.
That's quite remarkable to me. Does the kernel have any responsibility
to handle collisions and such? That seem highly unlikely. Perhaps they
manage to produce such a card and call it a WinNIC :)
I've found a major advantage of running NICs from modules is that
if you *do* get a problem in the driver ("Infinite loop in interrupt"
comes to mind), you just down the network, reload the module and up
it again. (You could even do this automatically.)
Email: email@example.com Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151
Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA
Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify
official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.