Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 18:23:15 +1000 From: Greg Black <gjb-freebsd@gba.oz.au> To: sthaug@nethelp.no Cc: andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM, brett@lariat.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Securelevel 3 ant setting time Message-ID: <19990822082316.6456.qmail@alice.gba.oz.au> In-Reply-To: <50744.935188518@verdi.nethelp.no> of Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:35:18 %2B0200 References: <19990820214657.1605.qmail@alice.gba.oz.au> <50744.935188518@verdi.nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
sthaug@nethelp.no writes: > > It may be worth noting that timed is much smaller and uses much > > less CPU than xntpd. > > That's probably true - but on today's systems it's also for the most > part completely irrelevant. No it's not irrelevant. FreeBSD proclaims that it can run happily on old slow hardware. It can. But not by wasting resources for long-running daemons. And, no matter how fast your hardware, it is still desirable that programs that run from boot to shutdown not waste memory or CPU. It doesn't really matter on a modern system if gcc is a pig since it's used in a transient manner. But it does matter if the daemons are pigs. > On a P-166 here an xntpd process which has > been running for 27 days has used all of 255 CPU seconds (ie. something > like 0.01%). It has a RSS of 476 kByte. I re-started all my timed processes 135 hours ago because of a change in network topology. Since then, the FreeBSD versions have used less than half a second of CPU which is more than 100 times less than you show for xntpd. And on the old 486-33 which is the server, the CPU has only clocked up a few seconds. -- Greg Black -- <gjb@acm.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990822082316.6456.qmail>