Valuable to try to build a *small* kernel?
mike at odegardfamily.org
Sun Dec 1 08:24:46 PST 2002
Barry Gershenfeld wrote:
> It seems to me that the "small kernel thing" really had to do with the
> 512 KB limit
> imposed by the loader. This was dealt with by compressing the image,
> then by
> modularizing a lot of drivers. For all I know they've got loaders to
> handle it now.
> But 2-5 MB for a kernel in 256 MB of memory isn't much of a dent.
> Maybe worry about ram buffers that these drivers allocate?
Doesn't the agressive use of cache and buffers in the 2.4.x kernel
really speed things up, when you have plenty of ram?
Since I upgrade my computers regularly, it's harder for me to tell, but
I am convinced that the 2.4 kernels in Redhat 7.1+ is faster than in the
2.2 kernel in Redhat 6.2.
Does anyone else remember the difference in performance between a 2.2
and 2.4 kernel?
More information about the KPLUG-List