Date: 05 Feb 2005 09:55:41 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: "Colin J. Raven" <colin@kenmore.kozy-kabin.nl> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make.conf syntax question (MODULES_OERRRIDE) Message-ID: <447jln12fm.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <20050204191259.F34933@kenmore.kozy-kabin.nl> References: <20050204151533.H34933@kenmore.kozy-kabin.nl> <44brb0xlaj.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20050204191259.F34933@kenmore.kozy-kabin.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Colin J. Raven" <colin@kenmore.kozy-kabin.nl> writes: > What I was (erroneously) trying to do was trim down the kernel to its > absolute minimum size and maximum performance, my thought was if I don't > need it, don't load it. Which makes sense. "Don't load it" is not the same as "don't build it," though. > I guess the logical question follows > though....why build all those modules (500 and something if I recall > correctly) if they're unused and not necessary? Because the cost of building them is low, and the benefit of having the module when you mistakenly remove something from the kernel that you wanted is high. It's kind of like keeping good backups; most of the bits on my backups wouldn't be needed even if I was restoring from scratch, but it's still a good idea to start with a full backup of *everything*. > It seems counter intuitive somehow, but probably I'm not seeing the > issue in its proper light. It's correct for the kernel itself. You don't need to build most functionality into the kernel unless you're going to use it on every boot. [If you're only going to use it occasionally, and you can load it from a module, you might as well do that.] For a typical desktop user, though, I recommend just building all of the modules all of the time, and not risking being caught without one you need.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?447jln12fm.fsf>