Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.


  Search this Thread
Old 12-05-2003, 12:43 PM   #16
Senior Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Indiana
Distribution: Mandrake Slackware-current QNX4.25
Posts: 1,802

Rep: Reputation: 47


Big mistake! You have no firewall without that.
Old 12-17-2003, 11:36 AM   #17
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Zwolle
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 651

Rep: Reputation: 31
what is a normal size for a 'standard' home system anyways? My kernel is 1,4 mb which is big I guess. But whould I really notice a speed difference if I recompiled it and left out useless stuff (standard kernel, just recompiled with right processor, no clue if it mathers, and added XFS support since my debian box is on xfs and I want to be able to read it)? At boot it hangs a few seconds on some bluetooth stuff, that could be left out. But I hardly ever reboot, system is always on. So what's the gain in making it smaller? (except for the fun in recompiling)
Old 12-17-2003, 01:24 PM   #18
Amigo developer
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,902

Rep: Reputation: 590Reputation: 590Reputation: 590Reputation: 590Reputation: 590Reputation: 590
A smaller kernel will give better performance unde any circumstance, not just cut down your boot-up time. I dare say though, that if your machine will compile a kernel in 10 seconds, then this is no issue at all.
All you really have to have compiled in to the kernel are the devices necessary for the system to boot, plus any other features you need that are not available as a module.
When you run make menuconfig or make xconfig, the items that can be set to 'M' are available as modules. Set the ones that you may need to 'M' and leave the rest out.
You should be able to get a kernel of around 1MB or 1.1MB. I think if it gets to 1.2 it will already complain of being too large.
If you like to play around or are unsure of the exact options you need then leave most stuff marked as 'M', then play around with /etc/rc.d/rc.modules disabling modprobe for things you don't need.
You can also speed up boot process by editing /etc/inetd.conf, turning off services such as telnet,comsat,etc.
Old 12-17-2003, 08:04 PM   #19
Senior Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Indiana
Distribution: Mandrake Slackware-current QNX4.25
Posts: 1,802

Rep: Reputation: 47
I used to try to keep my kernels below 800K but my latest 2.4.23 is 1.06M and my 2.6.0-test11 is 1.32M.

There is a reason for trying to keep a kernel as small as possible. Basically it's like most other things, the more stuff you add to it the more chance there is that something will go wrong.

But if your kernel is working then I wouldn't worry about it. The main goal is building a kernel that works and is optimised for your system.


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Compiling kernel = kernel panic Tons of Fun Debian 5 07-02-2005 01:59 PM
Compiling kernel module for linux kernel 2.4 in 2.6 guam Linux - Software 0 01-13-2005 02:02 AM
Where Is Kernel Directory In Rh9(kernel 2.4.20-8), For Compiling HSP56 MR(pctel) Mode rudy3107 Linux - Software 1 07-25-2004 04:17 AM
Compiling new kernel joseph Linux - Software 2 10-14-2003 07:26 AM
Kernel compiling and module compiling tarballed Linux - General 1 12-22-2002 05:31 PM > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Main Menu
Write for LQ is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration