Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!virtech!cpcahil
From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: X11R4 for i386 Unix
Message-ID: <1990Jul06.014514.14540@virtech.uucp>
Date: 6 Jul 90 01:45:14 GMT
References: <211741@<1990Jun22> <40800020@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu> <1990Jul03.222233.1896@virtech.uucp> <PCG.90Jul5160613@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk>
Reply-To: cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill)
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc., Sterling VA
Lines: 44

In article <PCG.90Jul5160613@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>
>This si again the result of poor swapper/page design. I cannot believe
>that the combined working sets of your processes was larger than 2-3
>megabytes. Hey, I cannot believe that the *total* size of your
>applications was larger than that, even if xclock is rumoured to grow to
>1.3 megs of address space...

Yes, but 2-3 megs of X applications plus 1+ MB of kernel plus 1-2 MB of
other overhead software (sh, cron, init, etc) means that a 4MB system
just doesn't cut it.

For the most part, the next step up from 4MB is 8MB and then things
run pretty well.

>	X	952	248
>	xclock	152	0
>	xinit	56	0
>	xterm	208	96
>	tcsh	104	80
>	uwm	120	32
>	xterm	216	112
>	tcsh	104	104
>
>	TOTALS  1912	672

Under ISC Unix 2.2 the sizes are as follows:

	Xlvp	355 (4K pages)  (Laser View server)
	xclock	100
	xterm   141
	xterm   144
	mwm	214
	xload   116

	Total: 1070  == 4MB

not counting shells, kernel & other system overhead.


-- 
Conor P. Cahill            (703)430-9247        Virtual Technologies, Inc.,
uunet!virtech!cpcahil                           46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160
                                                Sterling, VA 22170