Re: Kerneld

[Christian Hudon <chrish@libertel.montreal.qc.ca>]

On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Michael Meskes wrote:

> I wonder what you guys and girls prefer to do wi kerneld. We can either
> start it as early as possible so it also loads the modules needed during
> the boot. But then we either get some messages on the console (only in case
> of errors, though) or we should have to start sysklogd as early, too.
> I did use kerneld for some time before Debian had it in the modules package
> and I started it in /etc/init.d/modules, but never got any message on the
> console.
> 
> Or shall we leave it at it is now and load critical modules 'by hand'?
> 
> Opinions?

I'd rather have it started at boot time... Before attempting to mount local
filesystems. IMO it's cleaner to have kerneld support working all the time
for all the modules than "oh, it might work, but it depends on where that
module is needed in the boot sequence".  

Why would we need to start sysklogd as early, though? First kerneld isn't
that verbose. And it's only a temporary situation... Now if kerneld went
on to spit out messages to the tty even after sysklogd was started, *that*
would be annoying, but... 

And it's not because modules are early in the boot chain that's it's
critical. My MS-DOS fs gets mounted when "mounting local filesystems",
which is fairly early... but I'd hardly call that critical. :-)

   Christian