modules vs built-into the kernel

[djscribble]

Greetings,

Are there any benefits to having drivers built as modules as opposed to being built directly into the kernel?? Which is faster, more reliable, easier to handle, recommended?

thanks!

[linuxtuxhellsinki]

I prefer to build in Kernel, but it's sometimes easier to debug problems with modules

[roderick]

Here's the rule of thumb..

1) Is it required to get the system up and running (i.e. IDE drive support), then compile direclty in.
2) If it is not immidately required to boot or only may be required, then build as a module.

There's no noticeable difference performance either way anymore. Using modules is easier to work with in most cases. If you want to add or remove functionality, you can simply add/remove the module and compile the modules (make && make modules_install). Most times you won't even have to re-install the kernel or reboot in this case.

However, if all your support is directly compiled in, then you have no choice but to rebuild the kernel, re-install and reboot.

For desktop users, genkernel provides a very modular kernel, with many modules pre-enabled. If you don't want that many modules, you can still use the modular approach and enable the bare minimum modules for your system requirements.

For server users, it's arguable whether to go static or module. I still prefer modular, so I [potentially] do not have to reboot for new support/features.

But, to each their own.

In the old days, it was imperative to reduce the amount of drivers in the kernel as the kernel had to fit on a single floppy disk. Today, the restrictions aren't as bad.