On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:38:36PM -0600, Peter B. Steiger wrote: > > Could someone (like you, Matt) who knows the difference explain the > advantages of modular vs. non-modular kernels?
Modular has the overhead of the module loading system. If you build no modules, yet do not explicitly configure the kernel to *not* have module support, then no savings in overhead. This overhead is minimal, though, and needed if you have any 3rd party modules (like Nvidia). Other than the overhead of the module loading system, once the module is loaded, it shouldn't take any more system load than it would if built in. Also, modules not needed can be unloaded, lowering system overhead compared to the same kernel with everything built in. So ultimately, it comes down to need and convenience. Do you *need* to unload modules? If you have selected everything under the sun when configuring the kernel, you probably do just to save memory, otherwise probably not. Or, do you have a module that may be a bear to setup in /etc/modprobe.conf? You may opt to build it into the kernel if so. Everything is basically up to your requirements. Some people go extreme and make everything modular. On my servers I build ethernet drivers as modules in case I need to unload one and replace the NIC and reload (or build a different one) all without rebooting. Saves downtime. However, I don't do that for desktop machines. On my desktop I always build ALSA non-modularly as I can't think of a reason when I wouldn't want to the ability to listen to something. I hope this sheds some light on it. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
