On 11/07/10 13:57, Kaiting Chen wrote:
I'd like to go with fcron because it seems to work very well for most
people, has a lot of features while having a small dependency tree.
I think fcron is kind of heavy for most users.
looking at various recent x86_64 from [core], group 'base', in kilobytes
from pacman -Si Installed Size,
kernel26 - 114716
coreutils - 13076
binutils - 13272
util-linux-ng - 6992
bash - 3176
texinfo - 2392
udev - 1944
grub - 1900
reiserfsprogs - 1032
jfsutils - 1016
mdadm - 996
sed - 804
attr - 380
fcron - 1240
dcron - 152
While dcron is small, fcron is also small IMHO. I don't use texinfo,
grub (that's the GRUB Legacy package), reiserfsprogs, jfstools, mdadm,
etc. They're still part of [core]/base. It's harder to guess at the
typical RAM usage of the different crons, though it's worth noting that
only about 200 kB of fcron is the executables (the daemon executable
itself is 86 kB), and the rest is documentation files (yay harmless
documentation!). Someone who needs to shrink their system more will
probably have to choose packages manually, configure their own kernel,
etc. I think this amount of "heaviness" is an okay price to pay for a
Unix system with a high quality cron daemon.
-Isaac
