Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:17:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:17:47 -0500 Received: from hermine.idb.hist.no ([158.38.50.15]:26892 "HELO hermine.idb.hist.no") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:17:36 -0500 Message-ID: <3BEBBB21.357149FC@idb.hist.no> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 12:16:49 +0100 From: Helge Hafting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [no] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.15-pre1 i686) X-Accept-Language: no, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives? In-Reply-To:

<20011109141215.08d33c96.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rusty Russell wrote: > Modules have lots of little disadvantages that add up. The speed penalty > on various platforms is one, the load/unload race complexity is another. > Races can be fixed. (Isn't that one of the things considered for 2.5?) Speed penalties on various platforms is there to stay, so you simply have to weigh that against having more swappable RAM. I use the following rules of thumb: 1. Modules only for seldom-used devices. A module for the mouse is no use if you do all your work in X. There's simply no gain from a module that never unloads. A seldom used fs may be modular though. I rarely use cd's, so isofs is a module on my machine. 2. No modules for high-speed stuff like harddisks and network, that's where you might feel the slowdown. Low-speed stuff like floppy and cdrom drivers are modular though. Helge Hafting - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/