| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DrWoland
l33t
Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 603
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:04 pm Post subject: What's a good size for a kernel? |
 |
|
| Mine is ~1900kb. I only compiled the stuff I really need, but I hardly compiled anything as modules, since most of the stuff I need all the time. Is that an OK size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54878
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DrWoland,
Not if you want to put it on a floppy.
Mine are all under 1Mb but I use modules where I can.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrWoland
l33t
Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 603
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | DrWoland,
Not if you want to put it on a floppy.
Mine are all under 1Mb but I use modules where I can. |
I don't want to put it on a floppy, just wondering what the average kernel size was. Does putting things as modules and hten putting them in autoload.d/kernel2.6 speed things up or is it pointless? Everything in that kernel is used every time I use my system, so there isn't much point in making them modules if they don't save me any performance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54878
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DrWoland,
Using modules probably costs performance as they have to be loaded. You gain in flexability because its easue to tune things with module parameters. I could build more in.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Kernel & Hardware
