Subject: Re: why /bin and /sbin static
To: NetBSD User's Discussion List <>
From: None <>
List: netbsd-users
Date: 03/18/2001 20:29:42
> >
> > customized 1.5 standard - binary about 1.15MB
> It will be interesting to see what the unified buffer cache will do to
> your experiement....
will be probably a gain but it does not CREATE memory that is WASTED.
UBC+all_shared libraries would be best :)
> > > What's the raw speed on your disk?
> > 
> > 1MB/s
> Hmmm, thought so....
> > > How much swap space is used during this process?
> > 
> > 50MB. after booting it's 500kB swap and 1MB free.
> WOW!  No wonder it takes so long!!!!  (Of course you only gave me one
> set of numbers, not a proper comparison between the two scenarios.)

i can give you numbers after process and they are similar - 500-1000 swap
and about 1M free.
> What does "vmsat -s" show right after the login prompt comes up in each
> case?  Those are the really interesting numbers....

OK i will test and post..

> > > I suspect that if you have a decently fast disk and enough RAM not to
> > > need any swap space for this normal operation, then you won't be able to
> > > notice any difference in boot times.  I suspect you do have almost
> > 
> > yes
> Actually as it turns out you don't have enough RAM, at least not for the
> jobs you're starting at boot and the order they're started in.

i know and i WILL NOT have more RAM because it's unavailable for that
machine in reasonable cost.

> > > even an 850MB disk is likely to have an extremely slow disk.  I.e. try
> > > the same test on a proper server hardware platform that's designed to
> > > run as a general purpose multi-user Unix system.
> > 
> > sorry but you are talking like micro$oft!!!!
> NO, I most definitely am not.  Unix has *always* in the past required
> beefier systems than M$ crap (or CP/M that came before it).  Only
> recently has M$ crap gone the other way and out-stripped even Unix in
> its greed for system resources.  Unix was never a toy OS and it never
> really did anything useful on toy computers.
> Though your 486 laptop is in some respects far more powerful (at least
> CPU-wise) than early Unix systems, it is not really capable of properly

in RAM too.. 8MB is A LOT of memory comparing to machines on which used
were used.

> running a modern Unix-like operating system, and especially not as a
> server, as is clearly evidenced by your numbers.  Your laptop was a poor
> excuse for a computer in many ways even in its day.  It's not now, and
> never was, a server-class machine.  Stop running servers (eg. inetd and
> sshd) on it, and you'll see a bit of improvement.  I know 386/25MHz
> machines that would blow that laptop right out of the water.

i know too.

but let's stop talking about what crap of hardware it is, start talking
about how to make system work faster on ANY hardware and especially
low-memory and slow-disk one.