From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 12 06:56:21 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B9B16A41F for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 06:56:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.sv.meer.net [205.217.152.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DDF43D45 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 06:56:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) by outbound0.sv.meer.net (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k0C6tj1x013259; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:56:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/meer) with ESMTP id k0C6sJ0m092143; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:54:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: (from jrhett@localhost) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) id k0C6sJ83092142; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:54:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:54:19 -0800 From: Jo Rhett To: Peter Jeremy Message-ID: <20060112065419.GC84964@svcolo.com> Mail-Followup-To: Peter Jeremy , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <20060105093220.GJ1358@svcolo.com> <200601050947.k059lctk024288@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> <20060106103440.GB54324@svcolo.com> <20060106203120.GE51452@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060106203120.GE51452@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> Organization: svcolo.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006] X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 06:56:21 -0000 > >On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > >> While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero > >> people running a modified kernel of any version of Windows, > >> Mac OS X or Solaris, to name just three commercial OS's. > On Fri, 2006-Jan-06 02:34:40 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote: > >You're tickling a different subject here. All three of these operating > >systems have loadable kernel modules that work. On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 07:31:20AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > As does FreeBSD. No. See below. > > I mean, they dynamically > >load the modules they need, and you can disable kernel modules in > >configuration files. FreeBSD has loadable kernel modules, but they don't > >autoload (you have to modify rc files) > > This isn't quite true. FreeBSD does not currently have the tools to > automatically load kernel modules for most hardware device drivers and [cut more explanation of the "state of" which we both know] Let me rephrase it for you. One cannot run GENERIC on FreeBSD (like on these platforms) because one has to REMOVE drivers from the kernel in order to successfully use the hardware. Vendor supplies updated driver (.ko) for hardware. But you can't use this without either re-compiling the kernel with the new driver, or recompiling the kernel with that driver disabled. In either case, no GENERIC for you. This isn't true on any of the platforms above you have named. Thus, freebsd doesn't have a loadable modules interface that works well enough for this situation. > >To give you a specific example: if we could remove NFS and the 3ware > >driver from the kernel in a configuration file, we could probably run > >GENERIC. > > IMHO, NFS server could be removed without problems (it will autoload), > as could tw{a,e} (which are loadable). NFS client can't be removed > because it has to be built in to support diskless operation. We don't need either, we just need those resources (memory) back. And back to the topic: this is why we can't run FreeBSD GENERIC, but nobody has to tune their kernels on the major OSes ;-) > >hog we have to remove on small footprint systems > > FreeBSD has never claimed to optimally support small footprint systems > without customisation. There are too many variables and some kernel > functionality can't be readily converted to modules (eg IPv6 support). > In any case, the way to minimise the kernel footprint is to statically > load all the required functionality and not have any modules. Either way, it's non GENERIC. So you have strongly and clearly made my own arguement for me about why you have to modify GENERIC on FreeBSD but not on the other major OSes. -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation