Originally posted by Qaridarium
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Increasing Size Of The Linux Kernel
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View PostI'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:
-
Originally posted by chenxiaolong View PostAlso, 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.
Leave a comment:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by siride View PostI 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:
-
Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View PostI 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:
-
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:
-
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:
Leave a comment: