Tiny Core Base > TCB Talk

2.0rc4 Memory Comparison - It's all good news

(1/3) > >>

bigpcman:
Some 2.0rc4 memory numbers from meminfo post boot on my development system. In all cases it's amazingly small !

1. microcore no boot options
2. tinycore text
3. tinycore exit to prompt
4. tinycore no boot options

1234Total1,035,0761,035,0761,035,0761,035,076-Free1,013,4801,005,5881,005,5321,000,192-Buffers    0    0    0    0-Cache13,03620,70820,72020,728core8,5608,7808,82414,156

curaga:
In measuring these things, you should only do so after dropping the caches (to get a fair measurement):
sudo sh -c "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"

This cleans all file system, inode, dentry caches. Here's TC 2.0rc4 text boot in Qemu, before and after dropping caches:

Total     125504   125504
Used      26400    25064
Free      99104     100440

These are numbers from free, but similar practise applies to numbers from meminfo

bigpcman:
Ok, I remeasured the meminfo numbers after using sudo sh -c "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches". The results are below. The row I call core is calculated by subtracting from used memory, buffers and cache. I'm wondering why "core" memory for microcore with core extensions +jwm is higher than tinycore with no boot options? I am assuming the cache will simply vary with time but the "core" will be the same or do I still not understand memory usage?

1. microcore no boot options
2. tinycore text
3. tinycore exit to prompt
4. microcore with core exts and jwm
4. tinycore no boot options

1 -mc2 -tc-txt3 -tc-etp4 -mc-exts   5 -tcMemTotal:1,035,0761,035,0761,035,0761,035,0761,035,076Used:   20,496   28,416   28,416   30,772   33,432MemFree:1,014,5801,006,6601,006,6601,004,3041,001,644Buffers:    0    0    0  20    0Cached:13,02420,70420,71215,94420,720Core7,4727,7127,70414,80812,712

curaga:
Used - cached would leave ram used by apps, the root filesystem IIRC is in the cache number. As to why microcore shows more app ram usage than tinycore with similar content, I think that is the kernel processes doing the loop mounting and live unpacking.

bigpcman:

--- Quote from: curaga on June 06, 2009, 05:19:27 AM ---Used - cached would leave ram used by apps, the root filesystem IIRC is in the cache number. As to why microcore shows more app ram usage than tinycore with similar content, I think that is the kernel processes doing the loop mounting and live unpacking.

--- End quote ---

Yes indeed, tcz extension processing does use memory. I loaded tc with just one small tcz (cramfs) and that caused "app ram" to increase by 176kB.  So I guess the microcore core elements are adding about 1.5MB of "app ram" over and above what tinycore with no other tcz extensions would consume.

It's also interesting that Xvesa uses a little more ram in microcore than in tc according to "top".

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page