Re: CURRENT state of modules

From: Andre Guibert de Bruet (andy_at_siliconlandmark.com)
Date: 12/13/03

  • Next message: toxa: "Re: CURRENT state of modules" 
    Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:46:21 -0500 (EST)
To: toxa <postfix@sendmail.ru>

    On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, toxa wrote:

    > Looking back through mailing list I found only one big thread about advantages
    > and disadvantages of kernel modules and still have questions about it.
    >
    > Now with upgrading from 5.1-current to 5.2-current because of trying if usb
    > subsystem still broken or not on my laptop, I decide to build a big part of
    > kernel as modules. I remove many devices from kernel putting'em into
    > loader.conf:
    ...snip...
    > There are all usb devices, wireless lan devices, pcmcia devices, video devices
    > (agp, radeon) and nfs features.
    >
    > So my question is loading MANY modules will be as stable (or as unstable) as
    > putting them into kernel as appropriate devices (or options), or I will found
    > some problems?

    I've run my desktop system with a number of modules (8 in total) for a
    while without any problems.

    Kernel modules introduce a number of possible failure paths and an avenue
    for malicious code to be loaded. As such, some might determine that the
    flexibility isn't worth it for their production online systems. If uptime
    and stability is that big a concern, you probably shouldn't be running
    CURRENT in the first place. ;)

    Regards,

    > Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant >
    > Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ >
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: toxa: "Re: CURRENT state of modules"

    Relevant Pages