Re: Modulized or monolithic kernel on notebooks ?
On Thursday 30 November 2006 09:06, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I know, there was a lot of discussion about kernel-builds.
> And I really do not want start flamewars.
If you ask eight people any question about building kernels, expect to get ten
different answers!
> So here are my little questions:
>
> What do you think (with the the focus on speed):
>
> 1. Does it make sense to compile a kernel with all modules built in, for
> the hardware which is always present on the target notebook (maybe
> desktop-px, too) ?
I know from bitter experience that anything to do with sound or USB devices
(or for that matter, any slightly flaky hardware) should definitely be
compiled as a module. If they go T.U., you can easily cure the problem by
unloading and reloading the module. But if you built it hard into the
kernel, you're stuck with a dead device till the next boot.
That being said, USB seems (qualitatively) more reliable on my 64-bit
machine than on my 32-bit ones. I'm still testing to find out whether that's
to do with the motherboard or the 2.6 vs. 2.4 kernel.
I know of some people who like to install monolithic kernels (and disable
module loading) on servers; but that's done for security reasons, not for
speed.
> 2. Does this improve speed especially on 64-bit-systems ?
>
> 3. Has anyone experience with those tests ?
If there is a speed difference one way or the other, I haven't noticed it. In
any case, I would expect the difference only to show at boot time (if you
load the modules then) or the first time you plug in the hardware.
--
AJS
delta echo bravo six four at earthshod dot co dot uk
Reply to: