Messages in this thread | | | From | set@pobox ... | Date | Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:30:15 -0400 (EWT) | Subject | Re: Linux Tuning. |
| |
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Greg Lindahl wrote:
@> @>> PS. I had this idea when I noticed that precious 256 bytes are wasted for @>> modprobe path and wanted to make it tunable... @> @>This is an excellent example of something that's not worth tuning. @> @>-- g @>
Admitedly, 256 bytes is a bit of nothing, but people trying to cram linux into extreme small memory machines, perhaps for embedded applications are interested in reducing any unneeded memory consumption. The linux-lite people might have different ideas about tuning, than someone with a fat router. Whatever the 'linux tuning' project results in, I hope at its core, it creates _information_; what can you do, and what it means, and why. Once the information is gathered, you can package it up in different ways, according to various biases.
Paul
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |