-----Original Message----- From: David Nicol
what are the advantages of using Linux 2.0 kernels? The series is
The advantage to using 2.0 kernels is that you can run applications that require the 2.0.x series kernel. A lot of the 2.2 enhancements were backported to the 2.0 kernel. Some of the 2.4 enhancements were backported to the 2.0 kernel, but I doubt if any of the 2.6 enhancements were backported to the the 2.0 kernel. Another advantage is memory and disk requirements are much smaller. Still another advantage to the 2.0 kernel has been mentioned, size. It's a lot smaller, but not necessarily faster. Size and speed do not necessarily go hand in hand. The 2.6 kernel has some speed enhancing improvements. Although the size is by default much much larger, this can be changed to some degree by compiling a custom kernel and leaving out all of the code for hardware and features you do not use. If you aren't using/emulating scsi devices there is no reason to load scsi support/drivers in the kernel. Also compiling as much of the kernel to load as modules will reduce the kernel size. This is something everyone *should* do with their kernel. Also turning off debugging and stripping debugging code from the kernel and drivers will speed up the kernel. If your system doesn't panic or crash or lock up, there is no reason to have debugging code in there. Sure it's nice to have to give to the designers *should* the system fail. But there is no doubt in my mind that the 2.0 kernel would be faster on older hardware than 2.6. Some statistics on the various kernels in regards to size:
Kernel | Source Size Version | (bz2) ===========+============= 1.0 | < 1MB 1.2 | 2.3MB 2.0 | < 6MB 2.2 | 15.4MB (almost tripled) 2.4 | 30.3MB (almost doubled again) 2.6 | 35.4MB
So the 2.6 kernel source is almost six times larger in *compressed* size. This is inclusive of *official* modules. I couldn't find any comparison of the compiled size of the kernels. This information taken from the kernel archives. Personally I can't see using the 2.0 except in a classroom. I wouldn't go lower than 2.2. In fact until about 9 months ago I used 2.2 for my webserver.
JMHO, Brian Densmore
On Monday 06 December 2004 09:55 am, Brian Densmore wrote:
The advantage to using 2.0 kernels is that you can run applications that require the 2.0.x series kernel.
For instance, many of the firewall modules, like VOIP, have never been ported to the later kernels.
Although the size [of later kernels] is by default much much larger, this can be changed to some degree by compiling a custom kernel and leaving out all of the code for hardware and features you do not use.
I haven't seen a monolithic kernel in all of the time I've run Linux, starting pretty early in the RedHat release era (2.1). Once the kernel went modular, all of the HOWTO's that started with "first recompile your kernel" were obsolete, and so were considerations of slimming down by leaving out hardware support.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 09:55:29AM -0600, Brian Densmore wrote:
So the 2.6 kernel source is almost six times larger in *compressed* size. This is inclusive of *official* modules. I couldn't find any comparison of the compiled size of the kernels.
Compile size depends on the options, of course.
The 2.6 kernel has an option CONFIG_SHMEM_TINY which strips out some features that you wouldn't want on an embedded application. This might apply to the original poster.
You can get Linux to run on just about anything. It just depends on how much time you'd like to spend on it. =)
Jeremy
-
Brian Densmore -
Jeremy Turner -
Jonathan Hutchins