Les, is there any performance hit by using the stock kernel? One reason I ask, is the application that hopefully will be running if we can get the compile done is very number-crunching intensive. In fact, that is about all it does do aside from generating a few files. Altho I've got more than adequate horsepower to handle the job, I was just curious if there were any "standard reasons" to either build or not build. As for file sizes, no problem on space. I see from the bit I've looked around at the filesystem the kernal is not too large as it is, but of course, I don't know what the vsize is at runtime either. I know there is a lot of reading material in the man pages, and other sources too, but to get some more generalized info to start with is my goal. Les Mikesell wrote: >On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 09:52, Sam Drinkard wrote: > > >>I have not even decided if I want to undertake a kernel build, but for >>the sake of discussion, if everything happens to be in the stock kernel, >>why, other than file bloat, would you want to build a custom kernel? In >>FreeBSD, you can remove all those devices and drivers that are not >>needed, and, depending on how much stuff you add or delete, can make a >>decent size reduction in the kernel itself. I'm not smart enough to >>know if there is a performance trade-off with a whole bunch of unneeded >>modules or drivers in the kernel, but perhaps common sense tells me that >>there must be some kind of performance hit otherwise. >> >> > >Nearly all drivers are built as modules which have no effect on the >kernel if you don't load them. If the disk space used by the module >bothers you, you can remove the unused ones. The main downside to >building them all is the time it takes to compile a kernel which most >people don't need to do. > > > -- Snowman