Les, is there any performance hit by using the stock kernel? One reason
I ask, is the application that hopefully will be running if we can get
the compile done is very number-crunching intensive. In fact, that is
about all it does do aside from generating a few files. Altho I've got
more than adequate horsepower to handle the job, I was just curious if
there were any "standard reasons" to either build or not build. As for
file sizes, no problem on space. I see from the bit I've looked around
at the filesystem the kernal is not too large as it is, but of course, I
don't know what the vsize is at runtime either. I know there is a lot
of reading material in the man pages, and other sources too, but to get
some more generalized info to start with is my goal.
Les Mikesell wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 09:52, Sam Drinkard wrote:
>
>
>>I have not even decided if I want to undertake a kernel build, but for
>>the sake of discussion, if everything happens to be in the stock kernel,
>>why, other than file bloat, would you want to build a custom kernel? In
>>FreeBSD, you can remove all those devices and drivers that are not
>>needed, and, depending on how much stuff you add or delete, can make a
>>decent size reduction in the kernel itself. I'm not smart enough to
>>know if there is a performance trade-off with a whole bunch of unneeded
>>modules or drivers in the kernel, but perhaps common sense tells me that
>>there must be some kind of performance hit otherwise.
>>
>>
>
>Nearly all drivers are built as modules which have no effect on the
>kernel if you don't load them. If the disk space used by the module
>bothers you, you can remove the unused ones. The main downside to
>building them all is the time it takes to compile a kernel which most
>people don't need to do.
>
>
>
--
Snowman
