Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 18:18:35 -0700 From: Pedram Nimreezi <Support@Netflag.Net> To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ten thousand small processes Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030621181039.00ba2a10@pop.dc3.adelphia.net> In-Reply-To: <20030621185821.30070.qmail@cr.yp.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.2.0.9.2.20030621181039.00ba2a10>