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>