From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 27 09:47:23 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766F71065677 for ; Tue, 27 May 2008 09:47:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (unknown [IPv6:2a01:170:102f::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06C38FC28 for ; Tue, 27 May 2008 09:47:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m4R9lKU9030108; Tue, 27 May 2008 11:47:20 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m4R9lI0C030107; Tue, 27 May 2008 11:47:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:47:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200805270947.m4R9lI0C030107@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, jos@webrz.net, chris@smartt.com In-Reply-To: <483B351C.2070906@smartt.com> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-questions User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/6.2-STABLE-20070808 (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 27 May 2008 11:47:21 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Subject: Re: Kernel for Dual Core X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, jos@webrz.net, chris@smartt.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:47:23 -0000 Chris St Denis wrote: > Jos Chrispijn wrote: > > Tore Lund wrote: > > > Right, anecdotally. I seem to recall there was a real speed gain under > > > version 4.x. When I tried to trim my kernel in one of the 6.x releases, > > > however, there was barely any differenc. > > > > I have a hard disk bay in my server. Due to the fact that BSD is very > > flexible, in case of hardware failure other than hard disk, you can > > remove the hard drive and put it in any other server and with GENERIC > > you just power on and it will allways work. When you use a system > > tuned version, that might be not the case as some removed periphirals > > are deleted from the Kernel. Is this, in combination with the speedy > > processors nowadays, a reason to use GENERIC though? > > Is Kernel finetuning not for older hardware (P2 and P3 related)? > > Although this can be useful, it's still generally reasonably safe to > comment out a lot of stuff. For example, a server doesn't typically need > mp3 player support, and most ISA stuff can probably go unless you are > working with very old hardware, and a server probably doesn't need > pccard support. The more obscure NICs can probably go too. It might also be a good idea to remove USB support if you don't need it, especially on servers. The reason for that is that the USB interrupt handler is quite heavy-weight, and when the interrupt number of the USB controller is shared with another device (network or disk controller), it will suffer from the overhead. You can load USB kernel modules anytime if you discover you need them at a later time. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor, and when was the last time you needed one?" -- Tom Cargil, C++ Journal