Re: unloading unnecessary modules
Stan,
Correct. On my severs I too have sound cards and USB. I don't really
need them so I would rather unload them. I suppose I can do a macro
benchmark and state if it helped or not but I would like to know on a
micro level to see if it helped. I think one possibility is to do
"lat_pipe" from lmbench to measure transaction latency of a UNIX pipe.
My goal is to have the most optimal kernel/tuning since our
application is very latency sensitive.
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Leandro Minatel
<leandro@minatel.com.ar> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Mag Gam put forth on 11/26/2010 11:14 PM:
>>
>> > unloading unnecessary modules
>>
>> If they are unnecessary modules, the kernel won't load them in the first
>> place, as the hardware they interface with doesn't exit. If they're not
>> loaded, how can you unload them?
>>
>> I think you need to provide us with _your_ definition of "unnecessary".
>
> I suppose he's talking about that modules loaded for hardware that it's
> present but unused, for example: the sound card. For my servers I generally
> buy "clons" and they have an embedded sound card. So, we don't need the
> sound modules loaded at startup.
> Another example (maybe) is the USB, mouse, SATA/PATA when we have a SCSI
> controller, etc.
>
>
>>
>> If you're really that concerned about kernel footprint and performance,
>> you can always roll your own kernel, as I do, building in the drivers
>> you know you need, none that you don't, and disable loadable module
>> support. However, this can get tricky if you don't know precisely what
>> you're doing.
>>
>
> I don't know. I decided long ago not to compile the kernel anymore. I do
> prefer blacklisting modules instead. But, it's only my opinion.
>
>>
>> --
>> Stan
>>
>
> LMM
>
Reply to: