From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 12 11:59:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mass.cdrom.com (adsl-63-206-88-224.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.206.88.224]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9B737B529 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:59:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Received: from mass.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18651; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:03:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <200006121903.MAA18651@mass.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kerneld for FreeBSD In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:31:01 MDT." <200006121531.JAA08923@nomad.yogotech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:03:23 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > Not to mention "how much memory do you really gain by unloading modules"? > > > > Considering the price of RAM these days (although not as low as > > > > it was, but I won't be spending $650 US for 16M any time soon > > > > again), the few K that unloading a bunch of modules saves won't > > > > EVER really be noticed by the 83Tb chunk that Nutscrape allocates. > > ... > > > The issue is with really small ram embedded systems. > > > Making things CAPABLE of being small is different from making > > > them dynamicly loadable. > > > > Nobody in their right mind is going to produce a "really small ram" > > embedded system that features the sort of nondeterminism that > > "automatically" (read 'randomly') unloading modules would involve. > > Gee, I guess you better tell the QNX folks that, who've been doing such > things for as long as you've been programming. Everyone is an idiot or > a completely lunatic if they don't agree with you completely? Since FreeBSD isn't QNX, and entirely lacks the infrastructure that they have for this sort of thing, I don't get where you're going here. We _are_ talking about FreeBSD here, not QNX, right? If that's the case, my point stands - trying to "automatically unload unused modules" in the FreeBSD context simply isn't sufficiently deterministic or robust for this argument to be valid. There's too much "this would be good for X case" arguing going on, where the proponent clearly hasn't thought much about the X case other than that it sounds cool and might add some weight to their otherwise unrelated pet cause. "Really small embedded systems" appear to be the Cool Cause Du Jour. > Seems like everything is black/white for you lately Mike. Thought about > taking a vacation to cool off and relax? Let me know how yours is doing you, and I might consider it. How many years has it been now? 8) -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message