Re: most lightweight debian server
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 08:10:07PM +0800, paragasu wrote:
> > There is a lot more than just the I/O scheduler. It just popped into my
> > head because I am doing the configuration right now, myself, and because
> > of the debate/controversy about it. Also, you will want to build the
> > device drivers you need as modules, and configure the system to unload
> > modules when they aren't needed.
> > Trim everything mercilessly. Examples: You don't need battery support
> > if the computer is not a laptop. If you don't need anything but basic
> > cryptographic support, leave it out, and do crypt in user space. If the
> > thing only has one NIC, or one type of NIC (i.e., all the same), leave
> > out support for all the others. (In general, if you don't have the
> > hardware, you don't need the code.) Leave out as much debug code as you
> > can.
> > And so on, etc.
> > The 2.6 kernel is a little bloated IMO. I don't think that three I/O
> > schedulers need to be compiled in, but you can do that, and pick which
> > one to use at boot time. (For example.) (There's a config file.)
> > I would suggest going to the 2.4 kernel, but too much hardware and
> > software depends on 2.6 now to revert.
> > --
> > Mark Allums
> i will love to find out all the option available. I just one to ask one more
> thing. i hope it
> is not too much. Isn't the kernel have modular support. able to load and
> unload the
> needed and unneeded modules on the fly?
> How much is the improvement compare to the strip down version of kernel
> to the modular version in term of performance? (i know disk space is out of
> strip down produce small kernel size)
Remember, every time there's a kernel update, you'll have to go through
the whole thing again and hope that the same config works (that the bug
fix didn't change dependancies between the things you tried to leave
out) and do full testing.
Its far easier just to use OpenBSD GENERIC. Lets you focus on getting
work done instead of being a kernel hacker all the time.