static or dinamic kernel?

[operator]

---

hello everyone,

I have just finished (I hope) to upgrade my toshiba laptop running slack10.1(current) to the new kernel2.6.11.11 - I have come across a few problems that, thanx to google and other freindly ppl in yahoo chat rooms, I managed to resolve eventually playing on this new kernel2.6 - I only have one more thing to understand to pass from a total newbie to a (almost) self-sufficient linux user

what is the difference (in terms of performance/s) between building a static or dinamic kernel? would the manual compilation of modules be more performance-effective?

any suggestion is welcome - thanx

[budman7]

I've never heard static and dynamic being applied to the kernel.
They are normally applied to IP addresses.

[lakerdonald]

I've never heard static and dynamic being applied to the kernel.
They are normally applied to IP addresses.

Static and dynamic can also refer to how a program is compiled; that is are all of the libraries statically linked to it (creating a larger executable which is in turn portable to systems lacking the libraries in question) or dynamic linked, with the libraries dynamically loaded at run time resulting in smaller, less-portable code.
Although I've never really heard discussion of dynamic vs. static linking of kernel/kernel modules as I believe that it is a whole other animal than userspace. Kernel modules aren't linked against userspace libraries; instead of using shared libraries, they used a kernel symbol table, and different modules and export various symbols (functions, variables, etc.) much like shared userspace libraries export these functions and variables to programs which link against them.
I hope this clears things up.

[operator]

Static and dynamic can also refer to how a program is compiled; that is are all of the libraries statically linked to it (creating a larger executable which is in turn portable to systems lacking the libraries in question) or dynamic linked, with the libraries dynamically loaded at run time resulting in smaller, less-portable code.
Although I've never really heard discussion of dynamic vs. static ..............

I admit that I had to read it more than once and even more than twice, but eventually I think that it made some light into my developing brain, lol

furthermore, what I meant by static was building the kernel with permanent built-in code/s or dinamically by adding them as modules and then compile whenever u need that specific module - however, i think that it's clear in my head now as I am in fact about to finish building my new kernel2.6 to finally work fully

thanx to ALL

[lakerdonald]

Well wait a second; compiling something into the kernel and compiling it as a module is an important decision.
My general rule is, unless you use an initrd image (which I don't), then there are two things you must consider if something is available as a module:
1. Do I need this to boot my system properly? (Like for example a driver for my hard-drive or do I need SATA, etc.) If so, then compile it as built-in.
2. 99% of the time, if number one is false, then compile it as a module.

[operator]

yeah that was kind of what I meant, though it took me two installations and about 12 hours of working on it to get that!

[lakerdonald]

Glad to help.