Bob George wrote: > > if you're using a 2.2 kernel, why not include support > for modular drivers (including network)? I realize this > adds some size, but does 2.2 + module support exceed the > memory footprint of 2.2 with 6 monolithic drivers?
Those 6 NIC drivers will be modules. I want to keep the kernel as slim as possible so I'll be using modules where I can. I had intended making all the NIC cards useable as modules, but when I compiled the kernel it turned out larger than I expected and I'm looking for ways to cut it down. I don't think having all those NICs in the kernel as modules takes up that much room; however there are *so* many modules that I thought (perhaps) cutting them down to six might have a noticeable effect. I will be recompiling the kernel to see if it makes a difference; however, since it takes an hour to compile, I thought I'd check with you guys before I chose which NICs to include. > Those 3 are a good start. You might consider the SMC Ethercard > Elite/Ultra series. They were quite popular in the early 1990's > and I chunked several hundred into various machines. Perhaps you can help with the wd question. Do SMC Ultras work with a wd driver? The reason I ask is that several years ago I used a DOS networking program that came with an SMC Ultra driver. It seemed to work with my wd. > DEC Tulip-based and RTL8139 OK, I've made a note of those. However, the tulip module is 39kb (which is bigger than the 3c509, ne, smc-ultra and 8390 combined!). The RTL8139 is better (17kb). > If you like, I can ask on a couple of LUG lists I'm on. Thanks. Cheers, Steven To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
