Here is the sizes on my Mandrake 7.1 box:
VSZ RSS COMMAND
1084 376 qmail-send
1052 412 splogger
1040 320 qmail-lspawn
1040 324 qmail-rspawn
1032 328 qmail-clean
As you can see, my footprints are even smaller than your freebsd box...
dunno why though, i didn't strip the executables after making...
/Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> We finally got around sometime to set up an OpenBSD 2.7 box and
> put up qmail 1.03 on it.
>
> It didn't take us long to notice the memory footprint difference. The
> observation always ruined my appetite for dinner, and I now have quite
> a dim view towards Solaris :(
>
> Below is a short tabulation of what we have seen:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> vsz The total size of the process in virtual memory,
> in kilobytes.
> rss The resident set size of the process, in kilo-
> bytes.
>
> [Solaris8]> /bin/ps -o vsz,rss,comm -e
> VSZ RSS COMMAND
> 920 568 multilog
> 904 552 qmail-clean
> 920 512 qmail-lspawn
> 1616 864 qmail-pop3d
> 1592 760 qmail-popup
> 912 560 qmail-rspawn
> 1192 816 qmail-send
> 1808 1064 qmail-smtpd
> 904 504 supervise
> 936 528 svscan
> 896 376 tai64n
> 1680 1168 tcpserver
>
> [OpenBSD2.7]> /bin/ps -o vsz,rss,comm -ax
> VSZ RSS UCOMM
> 48 408 multilog
> 36 372 qmail-clean
> 44 404 qmail-lspawn
> 40 400 qmail-pop3d
> 24 320 qmail-popup
> 40 392 qmail-rspawn
> 108 448 qmail-send
> 80 416 qmail-smtpd
> 24 412 supervise
> 68 392 svscan
> 16 268 tai64n
> 60 500 tcpserver
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Solaris 8 runs in 32bit mode, on a UltraSPARC IIi Netra 105 box
> with 512MB RAM. The OpenBSD runs on a Dell P5MMX166 64 MB RAM.
>
> I recall (but I can't find it right now) that Dr. Bernstein mentioned
> somewhere in one of his docs that bloating executable sizes was one
> "trait" of Solaris. I didn't know it's this bad! 8-(
>
> May I ask my fellow qmail admins/hacks the following:
>
> o can you confirm my observations?
> o can I do anything to reduce the footprints of Solaris executables?
>
> It's really depressing to compare the interactive responses of telnet
> host 25 of the two setups above. The Sun box runs at 440Mhz, but
> owing to the large process size, it's actually "visibly" slower than
> that of a lowly PeeCee running at 166Mhz :(
>
> After the above observations, I don't think I will setup a linux box
> soon for tinkering. Too much too soon is not good for health :>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chin Fang
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
