From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 10 15:18:04 2006 Return-Path: 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 48C8016A47C for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:18:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lane@joeandlane.com) Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED3443CB5 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:16:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lane@joeandlane.com) Received: from [66.47.111.183] (helo=joeandlane.com) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1GtQQf-0005If-TC for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:17:26 -0500 Received: from joeandlane.com (localhost.localnet.local [127.0.0.1]) by joeandlane.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kBAFK04q032221 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:20:00 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from lane@joeandlane.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by joeandlane.com (8.13.8/8.13.1/Submit) id kBAFJx4T032217 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:19:59 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from lane@joeandlane.com) X-Authentication-Warning: joeandlane.com: lholcombe set sender to lane@joeandlane.com using -f From: Lane To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:19:59 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <200612100905.30430.kirk@strauser.com> In-Reply-To: <200612100905.30430.kirk@strauser.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200612100919.59564.lane@joeandlane.com> X-CD-SOLUTIONS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-CD-SOLUTIONS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-CD-SOLUTIONS-MailScanner-From: lane@joeandlane.com X-ELNK-Trace: e56a4b6ca9bdfda11aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec7956caaa8452361adc80ded3a206c5cad3350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 66.47.111.183 Subject: Re: Advantages of trimmed kernel? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:18:04 -0000 On Sunday 10 December 2006 09:05, Kirk Strauser wrote: > Are there any real advantages to building a kernel stripped of unused > drivers, especially when running it on a fairly large machine? For years, > I've been dutifully removing device drivers (or more recently, including > GENERIC and using 'nodevice') for everything I don't have. But does this > actually do anything useful, or am I just tilting at windmills? > > I know the definitive answer would be to run benchmarks both ways, but I > don't really have the option of pulling down a production machine just for > this. Kirk, I don't expect there is only one answer to your question. The issue is broader, I think, than just the relative speed and performance improvements achieved by running a lean kernel. You say that you can't afford to take a production machine down, but consider this: What if you trimmed all of the "fat" from the kernel on a server, and then the server's nic goes bad. Suppose that as a stop-gap measure you pull an old isa nic from out of the closet, install it, and then boot the server ... only to realize that your nic is not supported by the kernel that you dutifully trimmed. I think it is especially important to keep the kernel as flexible as possible, since you may have to install the OS on any given machine without the luxury of recompiling. Just my .02 lane