Re: static vs modules
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 08:17:25AM +0000, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 12:59:34PM +0100, Sebastiaan wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I was wondering if there is a speed/operating difference when compiling
> > > kernel daemons like knfs static in the kernel or in modules.
> > > Anyone know something about this?
> >
> > I think there is no measurable (is this spelled right?)
> > difference. (That's what I think, I haven't tested it)
> >
> > Modules are more flexible. For example if you get a new soundcard you
> > only have to insert the new module, you don't need to recompile the
> > whole kernel.
>
> I expect there is a few picaseconds latency when the module is first
> loaded :) Other than that I should think not.
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.
--
-=|JP|=- "This space intentionally left blank."
Jon Pennington | Debian 2.4 -o)
dren@penguinpowered.com | Auto Enthusiast /\\
Kansas City, MO, USA | Proud Husband and Father _\_V
Reply to: