LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   What's the size of your kernel? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/whats-the-size-of-your-kernel-329612/)

kornerr 06-02-2005 12:01 PM

What's the size of your kernel?
 
My "linux-2.4.26" is 972855 bytes long [950K].

DrOzz 06-02-2005 12:23 PM

you should be posting something like this in General forum.
mine is 1.7 megs just to answer your question.

trickykid 06-02-2005 12:26 PM

Moved... more suitable in General, not a Linux technical question, more of a survey type question.

Which one... I have 5 of them on 5 machines.. I could include the one's from work as well if you'd like... ;)

kornerr 06-02-2005 12:31 PM

Quote:

Which one... I have 5 of them on 5 machines.. I could include the one's from work as well if you'd like...
All:) I'm just curious about this.

harken 06-02-2005 12:31 PM

1.2 MB, but I think that I could bring it under 1 MB...I think I included 4 or 5 unnecessary modules.

trickykid 06-02-2005 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by harken
1.2 MB, but I think that I could bring it under 1 MB...I think I included 4 or 5 unnecessary modules.
Modules aren't included in that total size.. that's why they are modules, they are separate from the actual vmlinuz image you have.. ;)

cereal83 06-02-2005 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by trickykid
Modules aren't included in that total size.. that's why they are modules, they are separate from the actual vmlinuz image you have.. ;)

:D
I love it when people say that thinking that they are accually right.

Mine is 1.4 Megz on work comp. My Dual Xeon is 1.45. Both have scsi support and mine has a whole bunch of extra stuff because I test stuff on here. To make mine under 1 meg. I had to take out support for basically everything except the essentials to boot so I dunno how people do it.

masonm 06-02-2005 05:40 PM

This [<---------------------------------------------------------->] big.

scuzzman 06-02-2005 05:47 PM

1576214 bytes

trickykid 06-02-2005 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cereal83
:D
I love it when people say that thinking that they are accually right.

Not sure what you mean but a quick google search even brought up an excellent explanation of modules and will tell how and why they are not included in the total size of a kernel for many reasons:

"As operating systems evolve and grow over time, the designers of the system face a dilemma. If support for all possible functionality is included within the operating system kernel, the core program that controls the system, the kernel becomes very large and unwieldy. If support for the functionality is not included in the kernel, the functions will either work too slowly or won't work at all. Operating system designers typically solve this dilemma by modularizing support for functionality that can then be included or left out.

Traditionally, there are two ways to provide this modularity. The designer can separate functionality into separate processes called threads or the kernel can be recompiled to include/exclude any functions (not) included by the vendor. If the functionality is separated into threads, the kernel is called a micro-kernel. This solution imposes communications overhead as the threads coordinate their work. A kernel that has all of its functionality included when it is built is called a monolithic kernel. As the name implies, the downside of this solution is the size of the kernel. Linux' solution was to include kernel modules which can be loaded and unloaded on demand. This minimizes both kernel size and communication overhead."


-source John Holmwood http://www.linuxgazette.com/book/print/5752

I do love it when I'm right the first time and shouldn't have to explain myself or prove it.. ;)

finegan 06-02-2005 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cereal83
:D
I love it when people say that thinking that they are accually right.

Mine is 1.4 Megz on work comp. My Dual Xeon is 1.45. Both have scsi support and mine has a whole bunch of extra stuff because I test stuff on here. To make mine under 1 meg. I had to take out support for basically everything except the essentials to boot so I dunno how people do it.

Older gcc, get 100k out of using an earlier 3.x series.

I recently had to cramb basically every NIC, most scsi drivers, and reiserfs, ext3, all in 1.3 Meg static no-mods. That's a pain. Doing it again under 2.6... just wasn't happenin, hard enough modularizing the scsi mods, the FS mods (leaving in ext2), and needing ramfs and tmpfs support isn't small... one of the better tricks, compile i586, yank out the extra schedulers, and drop support for all binaries but ELF (unless you really need em). Anyway, between gcc type, kernel source, and no kidding... filesystem needs (drop XFS, you shed 200k!!!), at all gets kinda arbitrary.

Cheers,

Finegan

cs-cam 06-03-2005 12:43 AM

Mine is just over 2MB I think.

AlexV 06-03-2005 01:24 AM

Re: What's the size of your kernel?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by kornerr
My "linux-2.4.26" is 972855 bytes long [950K].
1188342 bytes.

Ha! My kernel is bigger than your kernel! You're such a loser :p

Or is it the other way around? Hmm... ;)

harken 06-03-2005 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by trickykid
Modules aren't included in that total size.. that's why they are modules, they are separate from the actual vmlinuz image you have.. ;)
Oops, sorry, I knew that but what I actually ment was that I compiled into the kernel some drivers that could've been compiled as modules, thus resulting a smaller kernel.
I'm well aware of the difference between modules and vmlinuz because when I first started compiling kernels, due to my lack of knowledge, I had to recompile at least 3-4 times/kernel because of some unchecked option...:o Oh well, that's past now.

kornerr 06-03-2005 09:27 AM

Quote:

Ha! My kernel is bigger than your kernel! You're such a loser
AFAIK, the smaller the kernel - the better:)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29 PM.