Re: ten thousand small processes
From: Pedram Nimreezi (Support_at_Netflag.Net)
Date: 06/22/03
- Previous message: D. J. Bernstein: "ten thousand small processes"
- In reply to: D. J. Bernstein: "ten thousand small processes"
- Next in thread: Chuck Swiger: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 18:18:35 -0700 To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
I hope that gets corrected to your liking.. I know this is irrelevant,
but I just wanted to thank you for tinydns... it makes programming
with dns soo much.. what's the technical term? better!
generate an ssh key and hop into your service directory and
./add-alias subdomain.domain.com 216.5.5.5.5; make
wow... And best of all... I don't need to use a dual processor to
run a 500 pound gorilla named BIND.
Thank You Doctor Bernstein.
Maybe LDAP later on when it's more widely used?
You can't get much simpler than you already got it..
svstat /service/tinydns and you get your exact service uptime
I have carpal tunnel... I'm sure you could relate
anything to save typing is a Good Thing.. Doing that in BIND
is hardly similar in triviality.
I don't suggest going straight into TinyDNS.. I suggest learning
BIND so you really appreciate the craftsmanship of you work and
I will continue to phrase it like that to clients and apprentices and
the fact that I saw you post on FBSD Hackers ;-)
God Bless...
At 06:58 PM 6/21/2003 +0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>FreeBSD 4.8. Test program: malloc(360); malloc(80); malloc(180);
>malloc(16); malloc(440); sleep(10); _exit(0). Compile statically.
>
>The program ends up with 44KB RSS. Where is all that DRAM going? The
>program also ends up with 168KB VSZ. Where is all that VM going?
>
>I don't care much about the 3-page text segment. But I do care about the
>39 extra pages of VM, and the 8 extra pages of DRAM. There's no obstacle
>to having a small program fit into _one_ page per process; two or three
>can be excused, but 39 is absurd. (Yes, I know that Solaris is worse.)
>
>At least 2 pages appear to be wasted by exit(), because it brings in a
>chunk of stdio, which uses 84 bytes of data and 316 bytes of bss. The
>libc implementors clearly don't care about 316 bytes of memory, so why
>don't they make those 316 bytes static? Why doesn't the compiler
>automatically merge some bss into data when that saves a page? Why can't
>I omit exit(), manually or automatically, when it's unreachable?
>
>Furthermore, malloc() appears to chew up a whole new page of DRAM for
>each allocation, plus another page---is this counted in VSZ?---for an
>anonymous mmap. Would it really be that difficult to fit 1076 bytes of
>requested memory into the 3000-odd bytes available at the end of bss?
>
>I sure hope that there's some better explanation for the remaining 32
>pages than ``Well, we decided to allocate 131072 bytes of memory for the
>stack,'' especially when I'm hard-limiting the stack to 4K before exec.
>
>---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
>Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>"freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: D. J. Bernstein: "ten thousand small processes"
- In reply to: D. J. Bernstein: "ten thousand small processes"
- Next in thread: Chuck Swiger: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
