Paul de Vrieze posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:55:25 +0100:
> Besides the fact that memory use is negligeable, you should keep into account > that scripts (even oneliners) use one memory page per script. Aliasses > however are stored by bash in a way that multiple aliases fit into one block > of memory. And when the memory is needed, bash will be bumped out of memory > too. But the idea is that those small aliasses will not actually need more > memory. Ahh... now /that/ makes sense, and is something I hadn't read before. Just to extent your reasoning, are you saying that cached hard drive memory is organized one page (minimum) per file, and that the same general reasoning would therefore apply to caching of /any/ small file (assuming the alternative non-cache memory is tigher packed than a page per file)? I prefer cause/effect relationships of that sort, if possible, to arbitary rules, as cause/effect seems to fit my brain organization and stick with me, where arbitrary rules like bash aliases are more efficient in their memory usage than cached scripts, just don't stick with me, as they have no anchor-point to the cause-effect logical framework I build up to store factoids in. Is there a definitive kernel reference somewhere that states such a thing -- one page per file cached? Also, is that standard 4K pages (and is the AMD64 page size also 4K or is it 8K or something)? -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- [email protected] mailing list
