Is there a memory bloat issue with ubuntu library compilation?

Miravlix dragon at lix-world.net
Mon Nov 8 02:16:08 UTC 2004


On søn, 2004-11-07 at 17:24 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> You have made some claims that Ubuntu uses excessive memory, and blamed this
> effect on hypothetical incorrect compilation techniques.  If indeed there is
> an aberration, we would of course be interested in the cause.  However,
> there isn't anything that we can do based on the information that you have
> provided so far.

Now we seem to be talking the same language and we are in complete
agreement that my original post was just a "huh, is there a problem?"
post.

I haven't yet managed to recompile all of ubuntu to check if this will
make a difference. Thats really the main measurement.

What I was hoping for was whatever someone had the answer already before
I started on spending a few days recompiling everything from source.

Does Slackware and Gentoo leave out certain things, that ubuntu feels is
required or use risky compile options?

Is it an issue with top/ps, kernel patches that is just creating a
visual difference?

But I guess this is virgin area and no one has considered whatever
memory usage is perfect at this time.

I'm going to start by analyzing some library usage traces between the
different distributions. Will make a overview on my web site if I find
anything.

-- 
Miravlix <dragon at lix-world.net>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20041108/7df3498b/attachment.pgp>


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list