| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
avieth
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 1945
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| What I wanna know is if theres a difference in performance from Modules and kernel options (<M> vs. <*>). That question has always bugged me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DrWoland
l33t
Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 603
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| avieth wrote: | | What I wanna know is if theres a difference in performance from Modules and kernel options (<M> vs. <*>). That question has always bugged me. |
Yes. Here's my understanding of it:
compiling stuff as <*> allows it to be loaded quicker, but makes your kernel bigger, aka have a larger footprint.
compiling as <M> makes your footprint smaller, but then stuff isn't loaded until you need it, and then it isn't as quick as it would have been if it were compiled in kernel. The advantage is, if you only use your scanner like twice a year, there's no reason for your kernel to be constantly loading it. So you compile that as a module and it's only loaded when you need it, the rest of the time your kernel isn't being bogged down by unncecessary drivers. If you have two network cards and only use one, for example, compiling the one you use as part of the kernel and the one you don't use as a module would be the way to go, so you can still use it later if you need it.
That's the way I see it anyway, I may very well be completely wrong 
_________________
I'm not a Guru, I just ask a lot of questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maedhros
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 5511
Location: Durham, UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Kernel & Hardware
