From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 16 01:19:42 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E5C16A402 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:19:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@ricin.com) Received: from smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl (smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl [213.51.130.200]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D6713C468 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:19:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@ricin.com) Received: from [213.51.130.190] (port=40697 helo=smtp1.groni1.gr.home.nl) by smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1HS16a-0004CZ-Sc for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:19:40 +0100 Received: from cp464173-a.dbsch1.nb.home.nl ([84.27.214.242]:59117 helo=desktop.homenet) by smtp1.groni1.gr.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1HS16W-00053p-M3 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:19:36 +0100 From: Danny Pansters To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:19:25 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <45F9C6ED.2010306@wcborstel.com> <707D1CE0-F7E3-4D29-A755-3AB7495FB66C@goldmark.org> In-Reply-To: <707D1CE0-F7E3-4D29-A755-3AB7495FB66C@goldmark.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703160219.25929.danny@ricin.com> X-AtHome-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@home.nl for more information X-AtHome-MailScanner: Found to be clean Subject: Re: Optimizationn questions? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:19:42 -0000 On Friday 16 March 2007 01:04:51 Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Jorn Argelo wrote: > > youshi10@u.washington.edu 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