Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:46:21 -0500 (EST) From: Andre Guibert de Bruet <andy@siliconlandmark.com> To: toxa <postfix@sendmail.ru> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CURRENT state of modules Message-ID: <20031213091736.C44419@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> In-Reply-To: <200312121910.14245.postfix@sendmail.ru> References: <200312121910.14245.postfix@sendmail.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, toxa wrote: > Looking back through mailing list I found only one big thread about advantages > and disadvantages of kernel modules and still have questions about it. > > Now with upgrading from 5.1-current to 5.2-current because of trying if usb > subsystem still broken or not on my laptop, I decide to build a big part of > kernel as modules. I remove many devices from kernel putting'em into > loader.conf: ...snip... > There are all usb devices, wireless lan devices, pcmcia devices, video devices > (agp, radeon) and nfs features. > > So my question is loading MANY modules will be as stable (or as unstable) as > putting them into kernel as appropriate devices (or options), or I will found > some problems? I've run my desktop system with a number of modules (8 in total) for a while without any problems. Kernel modules introduce a number of possible failure paths and an avenue for malicious code to be loaded. As such, some might determine that the flexibility isn't worth it for their production online systems. If uptime and stability is that big a concern, you probably shouldn't be running CURRENT in the first place. ;) Regards, > Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant > > Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031213091736.C44419>