Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:52:32 +0930 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Joel Dahl <joel@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r222980 - in head/sys: amd64/conf i386/conf Message-ID: <D9C5F48B-EDEA-4073-881C-721B8AA79219@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106111403060.44950@fledge.watson.org> References: <201106110908.p5B98kkE066709@svn.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106111403060.44950@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/06/2011, at 22:37, Robert Watson wrote: > While it seems like memory is "free" these days, that's not really the = case. The base kernel footprint is quite observable in VM = configurations, where it's common to configure quite low memory = footprints -- 256M, 512M, etc, in order to improve VM density. Speaking of memory - does loading something as a module impact on memory = consumption by the kernel (one way or the other)? ie would it be a penalty to load stuff as a module, especially if you = start loading 10's of them. (That said, I'm a fan of a small base kernel + modules for the many = reasons listed in this thread :) -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D9C5F48B-EDEA-4073-881C-721B8AA79219>