From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jul 7 11:11:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA08859 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:11:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from fw.tue.le (pC19F22CC.dip.t-online.de [193.159.34.204]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA08851 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:11:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from thz@Lennartz-Electronic.DE) Received: from mezcal.tue.le (mezcal.tue.le [192.168.201.20]) by fw.tue.le (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA00847; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 20:10:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from thz@mezcal.tue.le) Received: (from thz@localhost) by mezcal.tue.le (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA10020; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 20:10:29 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from thz) Message-ID: <19980707201029.31948@tue.le> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 20:10:29 +0200 From: Thomas Zenker To: Mike Smith Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD in less than 4MB RAM Mail-Followup-To: Mike Smith , freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <19980707135847.61797@tue.le> <199807071725.KAA00785@dingo.cdrom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <199807071725.KAA00785@dingo.cdrom.com>; from Mike Smith on Tue, Jul 07, 1998 at 10:25:50AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Jul 07, 1998 at 10:25:50AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > > A couple of years back it was easily possible to have kernel and a couple of > > user processes in 4 MB. I had such a thing running with BSD/386 0.9 - 1.1, > > then they got fat. Up to V1.1 it was possible to have a kernel size of > > about 360K with the same "needed" functionality as we got later with a > > 800K V 2.0 kernel. The same with FBSD, I can not get a kernel smaller > > than about 800K now. Probably it would be possible to get a better > > modularity, but that's very difficult. > > > > For those which say "put in more memory/disk": This doesn't help if you > > have to run out of batteries w/ solar-panels on very remote localities, > > only access by radio-telemetry. You need very low power equipment there. > > So the question is not $ but watts. > > In the same timeframe, memory power consumption has gone down by more > than an order of maginitude, while cost has fallen even further. > > Sorry, but the argument still holds good. 8) Sorry, but to run with 3 watts from dynamic memory is not possible, do you know prices of SRAM? Also effordable harddisks are much lower now in consumption, but not that low. So booting from eprom or floppy is a must. -- Thomas Zenker at work thz@lennartz-electronic.de private thz@tuebingen.netsurf.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message