From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Dec 10 15:05:39 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A706016A407
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:05:39 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kirk@strauser.com)
Received: from kanga.honeypot.net (kanga.honeypot.net [208.162.254.122])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E26A43C9E
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:04:28 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from kirk@strauser.com)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by kanga.honeypot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421932059D2
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:05:38 -0600 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at honeypot.net
Received: from kanga.honeypot.net ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (kanga.honeypot.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 7X+8MSv+nAOb for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:05:32 -0600 (CST)
Received: from kanga.honeypot.net (kanga.honeypot.net
	[IPv6:2001:470:1f01:224:1::2])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by kanga.honeypot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A83205873
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:05:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:05:25 -0600
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4
X-Face: &'; cS03F?rr_w2Qce.d2f7xmwXfcJWDs>}CkpDw.c]ZJJ_)i0Nx<H;
	ay@j^hX,SmEICW,=?utf-8?q?-=0A=09=7EcL=7B2IN+F=25qso!=5BmN9ym=23mUNgw?=)!O<^.*WB,IsUcT_hV@
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2705311.rVld7I0z8H";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200612100905.30430.kirk@strauser.com>
Subject: Advantages of trimmed kernel?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:05:39 -0000

--nextPart2705311.rVld7I0z8H
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Are there any real advantages to building a kernel stripped of unused drive=
rs,=20
especially when running it on a fairly large machine?  For years, I've been=
=20
dutifully removing device drivers (or more recently, including GENERIC and=
=20
using 'nodevice') for everything I don't have.  But does this actually do=20
anything useful, or am I just tilting at windmills?

I know the definitive answer would be to run benchmarks both ways, but I do=
n't=20
really have the option of pulling down a production machine just for this.
=2D-=20
Kirk Strauser

--nextPart2705311.rVld7I0z8H
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBFfCI65sRg+Y0CpvERAi1kAJ40MfLx8/Tem73FhVeJL0dw6z3owgCbB9Rs
5CRWMx7NB+ZuehQz9XP3MyM=
=sIF6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2705311.rVld7I0z8H--