On Friday 16 March 2007 01:04:51 Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Jorn Argelo wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote: > >> I know that this has been discussed a few times before, but > >> IMO running a slightly stripped down kernel (i.e. custom, not > >> GENERIC) actually proves to be helpful in increasing boot times > >> (if options were added statically) and compile times if [(# of > >> options added) < (# of options in GENERIC)]. > > > > I can confirm this too. I noticed on both desktop and servers the > > boot time can be decreased by stripping the kernel configuration of > > stuff you don't need. I don't have any hard facts to prove this but > > this is what my personal experience is. > > me, too. >
Of course it will speed up booting but then again how much time does one spend booting, compared to using the puter: not much (at least I hope so for them!) If I do build my own kernel, for example to switch schedulers, I tend to toss out a heap of devices that I don't have anyway. But other than a bit more memory usage (which compared to the software that's run will typically be minor anyhow unless you're talking embedded system or maybe not-so-embedded but still of low spec special purpose boxes, like a satellite receiver box) you're not going to have a slower system because your kernel happens to have some built-in drivers that it doesn't use. The exception is a debug kernel of course that will impact performance because it increases runtime tasks/load. On a server I'd strip down the kernel, but for other reasons (avoiding any unneeded complexity). On a desktop I don't care as long as thingie works. YMMV of course. Dan _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"