I'm planning on eventually building a custom kernel for my computer (as soon as I get FreeBSD on it). My question is this. Is an entirely monolithic custom-ly built kernel (that has no modules) better than a custom kernel that uses as many modules as possible?
Let me explain that better. Suppose I have hardware x, y, and z on my computer. That means I can essentially custom build two types of kernels:
Type 1: uses no modules and supports only x, y, and z hardware. (support for the hardware is "built-into" the kernel, which means that the part of the kernel that supports x, y, and z hardware cannot be unloaded from the kernel.
Type 2: uses three modules that support only x, y, and z hardware. Any of the three modules that support hardware x, y, z can be unloaded from the kernel at any time.
Type 3 is a mix of type 1 and 2. It can unload 1 module that will remove support of hardware x.
Which custom built kernel would be best? By best I mean, I want it to be as stable, secure, and fast as it possible can be.
Let me explain that better. Suppose I have hardware x, y, and z on my computer. That means I can essentially custom build two types of kernels:
Type 1: uses no modules and supports only x, y, and z hardware. (support for the hardware is "built-into" the kernel, which means that the part of the kernel that supports x, y, and z hardware cannot be unloaded from the kernel.
Type 2: uses three modules that support only x, y, and z hardware. Any of the three modules that support hardware x, y, z can be unloaded from the kernel at any time.
Type 3 is a mix of type 1 and 2. It can unload 1 module that will remove support of hardware x.
Which custom built kernel would be best? By best I mean, I want it to be as stable, secure, and fast as it possible can be.