Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.thepoint.net!news1!not-for-mail From: root@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD ... (FreeBSD extremely mem/swap hungry) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Message-ID: <4o81pj$2rp@dyson.iquest.net> Sender: news@iquest.net (News Admin) Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine References: <3188C1E2.45AE@onramp.net> <31A5D0A8.59E2B600@zeus.co.uk> <DrxB6M.Iyn@kithrup.com> <31A6D551.41C67EA6@zeus.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 22:32:19 GMT Lines: 26 In article <31A6D551.41C67EA6@zeus.co.uk>, Damian Reeves <damian@zeus.co.uk> wrote: > >My argument has nothing to do with a Linux/BSD war, Linux is merely >something I can use to compare BSD against on the same hardware. My >argument is why should my xbiff take 1.3MB of RSS. > Note that if xbiff is built using shared libs, much of that RSS is shared with other processes. If xbiff is built static, then there could be problems other than inside the computer :-). There are *certain* advantages to running without shared libs, but most X applications won't benefit. > >I think UNIX needs a RISC style overhaul, memory needs to 'pay it's >way'. > I agree, and there are changes afoot to make FreeBSD's management of process's memory more efficient. For example, we aren't using the BSD malloc anymore in -current (and haven't been for quite a while), but old binaries and -stable still uses it. There is ongoing work to make our malloc much better. (GNU and other malloc's have their own set of limitations also.) Malloc is alot more complicated than first glance. :-(. John