[ntp:questions] Re: Optimizing ntpd memory usage?

David Woolley david at djwhome.demon.co.uk
Tue May 17 06:30:32 UTC 2005


In article <m3is1irdqm.fsf at bfnet.com>,
David Wuertele <dave at rokulabs.com> wrote:

> But there's also 1.9MB that is *not* shared by other apps, and it
> seems excessive to me.  That won't get reduced by trimming libc or

Most of this is in libc and *will* be reduced by pruning libc.  SHARED
means that the region from which the memory comes from is shared and
the pages are resident for the specific process.  It doesn't mean that
the pages are resident for multiple processes.  The memory increase is
the total of the size of ntpd, and of the size of library code and
data that is in the library but hasn't been loaded into the working
set of any other application.

> statically linking ntpd.  Is there any way I can cut this down to

Most of that will *not* get linked in with the static link.  However, the
static link will duplicate pages that are common to other applications.

> something more respectable?

The actual size of ntpd is less than 500K on your figures, and a significant
part of that may be data associated with unused libc code.

Your only other choice is to not lock ntpd into RAM, in which case timing
accuracy will be severely compromised as ntpd poll intervals will almost
certainly guarantee that it will be entirely paged out between polls on
a system that does any significant "disk" I/O.



More information about the questions mailing list