| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
First version of kmod releasedFirst version of kmod releasedPosted Dec 16, 2011 3:20 UTC (Fri) by gsbarbieri (subscriber, #10537)In reply to: First version of kmod released by dlang Parent article: First version of kmod released
Note that although core modules are better to be builtin, eliminating the need for initramfs (filesystem, main system buses, eventually network), you really don't want to have all possible USB and similar by default. God, how many times do you plug in your camera that need special drivers?
Then completely disabling module support is bad, in this case you still have udev looking for modalias and trying to resolve it. If you have it builtin or no drivers it may evaluate to empty list, currently there is no way to know it and udev worker process execute "modprobe -b ALIAS"... It will in turn execute fork, exec, linker, load of multiple index files, lookup and then exit.
With libkmod udev will be able to load the index once and do in-process resolution of alias before doing any action.
(Log in to post comments)
First version of kmod released Posted Dec 16, 2011 4:09 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
Even if you don't use modules at all, you may still need an initramfs if user-mode setup is required to access the root filesystem. Examples include root-on-LVM, encrypted root (dm-crypt), and some varieties of network-mounted root filesystems. Any of these options can sensibly be used in a server configuration.
First version of kmod released Posted Dec 16, 2011 4:59 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
most cameras now show up as a mass storage device and so they don't need special drivers.
this didn't use to be the case.
But again, I was saying that servers seldom need modules, how frequently are you plugging random USB devices into servers?
I have been running with module support completely disabled on my servers for many years. I haven't run in to any problems with it.
First version of kmod released Posted Dec 16, 2011 5:43 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
If you know every piece of hardware that will ever be connected to your server then you can certainly build a kernel that will handle it without modules. If you're paying for support from a commercial distribution vendor then you'll probably end up forfeiting a bunch of that support by not running the kernel they provide, but if that's what you want then nobody's going to tell you not to.
|
|
||||||||||||