> Joseph Edcel R. Lluisma wrote:
>
> I'm wondering what are the major distinctions of monolithic and
> modular kernels. Would I improve performance if I include all the
> features in the native kernel? Or is it better to keep my kernel
> relatively small and have most features as a loadable module? Please
> site advantages/disadvantages, if any.
Have you misunderstood something? At least for now, Linux has a
monolithic kernel architecture no matter what number of modules you
have/use.
However, I will [try to] answer your question. If you have a bad
computer/play Quake/compile big programs/are running a server/are stingy
about programs stealing RAM/etc/etc, then you should perhaps compile
some parts as modules.
Actually, there is no difference in use. If you have turned the daemon
on, modules will load and unload dynamically, for example every time you
use PPP.
I don't usually use modules. I have enough RAM, and I like everything in
_one_ place.
If you want a microkernel operating system, get GNU (oh no, it's not
released yet. Hm, they said that in 1984, too) or something else. If you
want Linux, get "make menuconfig".
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Joseph Edcel R. Lluisma
> jrl@curricula.net
> -----------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu