From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jun 11 18:34:39 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81081065673;
	Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:34:39 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 541F51A8D90;
	Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:34:27 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4DF3B532.6020908@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:34:26 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
References: <BANLkTin2AwKRT7N6HWqBctJcT72_mR=Otg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin2AwKRT7N6HWqBctJcT72_mR=Otg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] shipping kernels with default modules?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:34:39 -0000

On 6/11/2011 2:21 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Has there been any further thought as of late about shipping kernels
> with modules only by default, rather than monolithic kernels?
>
> I tried this experiment a couple years ago and besides a little
> trickery with ACPI module loading, it worked out fine.
>
> Is there any reason we aren't doing this at the moment? Eg by having a
> default loader modules list populated from the kernel config file?

Has anyone benchmarked monolithic vs. modular? I think that should be 
done before we move in this direction.


Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/