Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Increasing Size Of The Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • chenxiaolong
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    MIPS isn't i386. and also you don't count the drivers from old i386 only hardware.

    be sure its more than 8mb.

    i don't call for deleting all 32bit stuff only the intel 32bit stuff.
    Got it Thanks for clarifying.

    Leave a comment:


  • siride
    replied
    Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    I'm not sure how you'd get useful granularity with multiple driver tarballs. It seems like no matter how you split it, you'd run into the problem of "80% of the users use 20% of the code, but it's never the same 20%".
    Any given user, however, would only need to use a small part and thus would only need to download a small part. That's for the hobbiests who actually need to download the kernel source, and distros to build their own binaries. For most end-users, this is entirely a non-issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by chenxiaolong View Post
    Also, if the kernel developers go for amd64 only, then we'll be back in the internet-less world, since Linux won't support that MIPS processor in your modem and router anymore.
    Linux doesn't have to support MIPS, busybox has to. There is no reason, beyond sheer laziness or incompetence, that the busybox people can't role their own code for MIPS.

    Leave a comment:


  • leeenux
    replied
    Ah, the joy of statistics.

    I don't care if the sources hit 1GB, to be quite honest. I'll take the increase in size to mean that they've been busy fixing the various shortcomings the kernel has had over the years, and adding support for even more oddball architectures I'll never use.

    The size of a compiled and packaged kernel still tends to be between 1MB and 100MB depending on what you've included. Come and alarm me when a compiled kernel hits 100GB and I no longer have the hard drive space to install it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ex-Cyber
    replied
    I'm not sure how you'd get useful granularity with multiple driver tarballs. It seems like no matter how you split it, you'd run into the problem of "80% of the users use 20% of the code, but it's never the same 20%".

    Leave a comment:


  • amphigory
    replied
    It would be a pain in the ass having separate tarballs. No thanks. I well remember the days of building separate modules (Atheros (madwifi) or Prism54, etc) and do not miss them. Having the kernel and drivers in one tree makes things much easier.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeepDayze
    replied
    Originally posted by siride View Post
    I didn't explain it well enough. You'd have a core tarball that everyone needs, and then tarballs for individual drivers, or driver sets, that you could download as needed for your machine or architecture. It would be not unlike what binary distros do already with separate RPMs for modules.
    Precisely what is meant

    Leave a comment:


  • siride
    replied
    Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    I don't understand the point of merely splitting the tarball. If you can't mix and match the "core" and "driver" parts (which you generally can't because Linux deliberately lacks stable kernel driver APIs), what good does it do to download them separately?
    I didn't explain it well enough. You'd have a core tarball that everyone needs, and then tarballs for individual drivers, or driver sets, that you could download as needed for your machine or architecture. It would be not unlike what binary distros do already with separate RPMs for modules.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ex-Cyber
    replied
    I don't understand the point of merely splitting the tarball. If you can't mix and match the "core" and "driver" parts (which you generally can't because Linux deliberately lacks stable kernel driver APIs), what good does it do to download them separately?

    Leave a comment:


  • amphigory
    replied
    This article is not really newsworthy. It would be more interesting if he showed architecture specific numbers and object code sizes. This is what I see with 3.1. Source tree 1.2G uncompressed (with built object files). My resulting kernel is 16M. gzip'd it is 3.3M. There is 14M in /lib/modules for this kernel with my build.

    Code:
    eherr@quark:~/packages/src/kernel/stable/linux-3.1$ du -sh
    1.2G    .
    eherr@quark:~/packages/src/kernel/stable/linux-3.1$ du -sh *
    150M    arch
    2.2M    block
    20K    COPYING
    96K    CREDITS
    7.0M    crypto
    19M    Documentation
    307M    drivers
    7.8M    firmware
    62M    fs
    24M    include
    436K    init
    804K    ipc
    4.0K    Kbuild
    4.0K    Kconfig
    13M    kernel
    5.3M    lib
    200K    MAINTAINERS
    56K    Makefile
    5.6M    mm
    4.0K    modules.builtin
    16K    modules.order
    360K    Module.symvers
    55M    net
    20K    README
    4.0K    REPORTING-BUGS
    156K    samples
    3.5M    scripts
    2.7M    security
    35M    sound
    1.9M    System.map
    3.2M    tools
    48K    usr
    172K    virt
    9.5M    vmlinux
    16M    vmlinux.o
    
    eherr@quark:/lib/modules/3.1.0$ du -sh
    14M    .

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X