Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:41:52 -0600 From: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Advantages of trimmed kernel? Message-ID: <200612100941.53860.kirk@strauser.com> In-Reply-To: <200612100919.59564.lane@joeandlane.com> References: <200612100905.30430.kirk@strauser.com> <200612100919.59564.lane@joeandlane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1275689.KVHPcnRoGT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 10 December 2006 09:19, Lane wrote: > You say that you can't afford to take a production machine down, but > consider this: What if you trimmed all of the "fat" from the kernel on a > server, and then the server's nic goes bad. Well, that's an example of the kind of thing that makes me not want to hack= =20 GENERIC too much. Also, accidentally removing some critical driver is=20 another drawback. So, with all the disadvantages, are there any real=20 advantages to doing this? Saving half a meg of memory on a four gig machin= e=20 isn't worth the aggravation. Squeezing an extra 10% performance out of the= =20 same hardware would be, though. =2D-=20 Kirk Strauser --nextPart1275689.KVHPcnRoGT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFfCrB5sRg+Y0CpvERAnUDAKCEnMA3/L0BW2w+rozkfeV58x/7eACeNeSe Ynl194RGiWaWxpWQ0tD6s0U= =s3SZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1275689.KVHPcnRoGT--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200612100941.53860.kirk>