Re: memory footprint for unslung and openslung
- fransmeulenbroeks wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, Øyvind Repvik <oyvind@r...> >Swap is never on the flash.
>>If you're not gonna run NFS, you save another 96k mem by killing off
> Would this matter? When booting from a disk, I would expect the swap
> space to reside on that disk too, so if portmap is not used it will
> live on the hd (which is big enough to pick up this additional 96k).
> If the swap is on the flash, please inform me. That could explain a
> crash or two.
That portmap is running isn't much of an issue. But why swap it out when
it's not needed at all? :-)
- Rod Whitby wrote:
> On 6/28/05, Øyvind Repvik <oyvind@...> wrote:It's a binary? Unlikely to run on OpenSlug at all then. If it runs, it
>>It might be possible to gain more memory by running an uClibc OpenSlug.
>>I'll do a build today and see how much memory is available on that.
> Would a TwonkyVision executable (for which you do not have the source,
> cause it is a commercial program) which has been built against glibc
> 2.2.5 for Unslung work on OpenSlug (other glibc, or uclibc based) ?
> -- Rod
is *very* likely that it will behave in strange ways. On uClibc OpenSlug
it won't run at all.
Feel free to try to run it on OpenSlug glibc though. You never know, it
is technically possible that TwonkyVision is not using any library calls
that have changed since 2.2.5