On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 17:15 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:11:57PM -0400, James Antill wrote: > > > I wondered whether prelink cleaned up after itself. > > It's not really prelink's fault, it's doing what it should. It can just > > be annoying how much RAM it uses sometimes. > > So, uh, are there numbers somewhere on the benefits of prelink on modern > hardware? It's got a lot of downsides. Prelink works as a multiplier for this, so if you (or anyone) want to measure what that is you need to try and get variables for: 1. rough number of updates for fedora that replace libraries or libexec type processes. 2. number of processes likely to be using libraries in #1. 3. how much memory VSZ/RSS is wasted because of that. 4. how much running prelink nightly changes #3. 5. how much advantage prelink gives to application startup. ...and that's the easy bit, then you have to somehow work out how long a user keeps a machine running and often they apply updates and compare that against how much memory/CPU they have. I can well imagine that users who update more often and keep their machines running longer have significantly more RAM (and CPU) in their machines. For anyone who doesn't update much, or shuts their machine down every day or so ... I'd be very surprised if the current behaviour wasn't optimal. -- James Antill <james.antill@xxxxxxxxxx> Red Hat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
