On Fri, 29 May 2009 16:55:24 -0700, Steven Schlansker <s...@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > Hm. I was actually under the impression that you wouldn't gain much > by compiling your own kernel (except for maybe some disk space).
No. Compiling one's own kernel allows for some definitions, e. g. having only the support in the kernel for the hardware that is actually existing in the specific settings. Furthermore, in some cases variables need to be set at kernel compile time. For example, in FreeBSD 5 the only way to get IPFW was to compile it into the kernel. Today, there's a module for this. As you mentioned correctly, speed considerations may also lead you to the requirement of compiling the kernel. Speaking for myself, I like to have a custom kernel on my own machine (which is somewhat special, so it deserves it), but on customers' systems, going with "as most untouched as possible" is often the way I choose. This allows me to safely use tools like freebsd-update. > Is there a strong reason to compile your own > kernel for "production" machines? In most cases, production machines do not require compiling a kernel. But it depends on the setting - if you essentially need something that cannot be done via kernel tunables or loadable modules. > The discussion online is not > conclusive (then again I'll probably just get contradictory opinions > again here!) Of course. :-) -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"