> From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.k...@gmail.com] > > I agree on busybox differences but sometimes its not about > the utilities they are needed for some sundry work. > What would be interesting to know is how much size increase > is caused by replacing all busybox functionality > with other utilities and also RAM consumption. That can give > valuable information for someone who is assembling embedded > system stack and help him/her the decision making. embedded > systems of today might have more memory and what not, but > they are also running more > complex applications than in past, so software bloat has > caught up with more memory, in the end you still need to be > cautious about the footprint and equation remains almost same.
As I said in another message, my 32-bit Intel system image increased by 36MB when I added the full utilities. The busybox executable is half a meg, while individual full-featured commands are generally a few tens of kilobytes. I don't know if running busybox loads the whole thing into physical RAM, or if it only allocates the pages that are actually touched; that would determine the relative RAM use, I suppose. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:pdero...@ix.netcom.com -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
