Hi Jimmy, Thanks for your email. Therefore, is it generally safe to compile everything as a module (given that the option exists)?
Thanks, Bryan On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 02:43:52PM -0600, Jimmy Richards wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > The main advantage is the when you compile something as a module it > does not > take up any memory unless it gets loaded by the kernel. If you compile > something into the kernel then it gets loaded into memory as part of the > kernel since it is part of the kernel. For instance, you could have 15 things > as modules and when you boot into linux only five of them are loaded because > they are needed. The other 10 wait until you need them. If you load up a vfat > module, it then takes up some memory. If you never call upon the vfat module, > that much less memory is taken up by kernel code. A smaller kernel memory > footprint if you will, is the advantage. Some kernel modules/drivers may take > up some resources other than just memory too. > > Hope that helps explain it a little, > > Jimmy Richards > > > On Monday 02 April 2001 14:12, Bryan Walton wrote: > > I am sure that there are many different ideas on this topic, and would like > > to here people's thoughts. When compiling kernels, I can compile many > > things into the kernel. But I often have the option to compile many things > > as a module. > > What are the pros and cons of compiling things as modules? Should I > > stay away from that? Should I always compile as a module if the option is > > available? Ideas? > > > > Thanks, > > Bryan Walton -- Bryan K. Walton Network Operations Center Analyst Berbee...putting the E in business http://www.berbee.com/ GPG fingerprint: BF68 340D A650 E2D7 86B9 FED5 DDFF 3EEE 3229 7B5D