From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 21 02:12:36 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95CF4CD7 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 02:12:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tds-solutions.net (tds-solutions.net [69.164.206.65]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F9E7B4 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 02:12:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [136.167.217.27] (blakesjo--xbox.bc.edu [136.167.217.27]) (Authenticated sender: tyler) by tds-solutions.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF88BA11D; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:18:33 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <532BA00F.1050401@tysdomain.com> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:12:31 -0400 From: "Littlefield, Tyler" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: kpneal@pobox.com Subject: Re: kernel config:advice References: <532B6E81.60604@tysdomain.com> <20140321002111.GB18540@neutralgood.org> In-Reply-To: <20140321002111.GB18540@neutralgood.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: tyler@tysdomain.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 02:12:36 -0000 On 3/20/2014 8:21 PM, kpneal@pobox.com wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Littlefield, Tyler wrote: >> hello: >> My kernel that is running currently is a bit large and has a lot of >> support for hardware I do not use. Here is my kernel config: > What, is your machine memory constrained? The generic kernel is, what 12MB > in size? It's a bother using a custom kernel, and I wonder if it is really > worth the trouble. As someone who used to compile custom kernels for fun > I have to say I wouldn't bother with it today. > > As far as I know the biggest reason to have a custom kernel is if you > want to use ipsec. But don't hold me to that. > >> #device mps > You commented out the mps driver. > >> #device scbus > This is part of the CAM subsystem. Since you are getting compilation errors > from that subsystem I suggest putting this device back into your config. > This goes double when the commented out device is actually mentioned in > your dmesg log. > >> errors: >> tws_cam.c:(.text+0x1093): undefined reference to `xpt_done' >> tws_cam.o: In function `tws_scsi_complete': >> tws_cam.c:(.text+0x196d): undefined reference to `xpt_done' >> tws_cam.o: In function `tws_timeout': >> tws_cam.c:(.text+0x1afb): undefined reference to `xpt_freeze_simq' >> tws_cam.c:(.text+0x1b92): undefined reference to `xpt_release_simq' > Come to think of it, it makes more sense to start with a full GENERIC > config and then gradually remove devices. That way if you get an error > compiling/linking you know where to look. Haphazard scattershot changes > just leaves you with a mess. > >> (probe2:mps0:0:2:0): INQUIRY. CDB: 12 00 00 00 24 00 >> (probe2:mps0:0:2:0): CAM status: Invalid Target ID >> (probe2:mps0:0:2:0): Error 22, Unretryable error > Seems like if you have an mps controller you will need that mps device > that you removed. Otherwise the kernel won't be able to talk to your disks. > >> da0 at mps0 bus 0 scbus0 target 0 lun 0 > Here's that mention of scbus. Removing this from your config is probably > the problem. > >> Does anyone see any issues with this? I am unable to compile. While I am >> not trying to trim out everything, I'd really just like to have this >> customized for my hardware (this is a dedicated server). I'm going to be >> putting a lot of load on this server and wanted to do what I could to >> minimize unwanted overhead (if any really). > I really doubt you will see any real benefit from this. The kernel just > isn't that large by today's standards. If it did eliminate any overhead, > and that overhead mattered, then your machine is waaay too close to the > limit already and should be upgraded now. > Hello: Thanks a lot for the help--I feel a bit dim after looking at the reply. The machine is rather large (32 gb ram), etc. I just wanted to cut some of this out. I started generic and was trying to remove unwanted devices and options, then got a bit lost with it when I started seeing compilation errors. thanks again for the help, I really appreciate it. -- Take care, Ty http://tds-solutions.net He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave.