From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Oct 2 11:24:21 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id LAA13514 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 11:24:21 -0700 Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA13500 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 11:24:14 -0700 Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA22063; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 11:15:23 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199510021815.LAA22063@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 will require a minimum of 8MB for installation. To: mcw@hpato.aus.hp.com (M C Wong) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 11:15:23 -0700 (MST) Cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, mcw@hpato.aus.hp.com, freebsd-questions@freefall.freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199510020144.AA052018276@hp.com> from "M C Wong" at Oct 2, 95 11:44:33 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 825 Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Yes, this is what I did. I was trying to say that, there is no finer > resolution on the memory allocated for use for each of the OPTION in the > kernel. No, there is not. As more and more structures become dynamically allocated (and therefore dynamically reconfigurable), the static code and data sizes will fall further and further below the actual usage at runtime. This is already a problem with any runtime allocations that take place, and since they take place conditionally, there is really no way to check what their final values will be, only what they *may* be. Even then, it will require going through the kernel looking for the hard limits on all memory allocations. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.