Ayup modulo a typu I do. Don't forget I am an old troglodyte
paleocomputer type who is quite contented with a few remote ssh
logins to 60 line command line sessions. That's MUCH lighter weight
than playing with X. I do have some sanity left, ya know. Here's a
piece of top at the moment - yeah 256m is closer to the point:
=======8<======
18:28:31 up 22 days, 9:16, 7 users, load average: 1.40, 2.73, 2.75
78 processes: 77 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 1.9% user 1.9% system 0.0% nice 0.0% iowait 96.1% idle
Mem: 255776k av, 150048k used, 105728k free, 0k shrd, 29424k
buff
74864k actv, 27032k in_d, 3176k in_c
Swap: 1161168k av, 69772k used, 1091396k free 46476k
cached
PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU COMMAND
2716 jdow 16 0 1168 1168 852 R 2.3 0.4 0:00 0 top
18700 root 18 0 240 4 0 S 1.5 0.0 0:31 0 sshd
1 root 15 0 104 80 56 S 0.0 0.0 0:28 0 init
2 root 15 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 0 keventd
3 root 15 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 0 kapmd
4 root 34 19 0 0 0 SWN 0.0 0.0 0:00 0
ksoftirqd_CPU
9 root 25 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 0 bdflush
5 root 15 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 1:06 0 kswapd
6 root 15 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 0 kscand/DMA
7 root 15 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 21:03 0
kscand/Normal
8 root 15 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 0
kscand/HighMe
10 root 15 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:07 0 kupdated
....
=======9<>8======
(oh look, the scissors are mating! I wonder if the babies are paperclips
or wire coathangers....)
Of course, keeping Linux up these days is nothing like the 2.0.36 days
when I had a machine up for about 460 days before I took it down to
put in a second NIC card when we got DSL service here.
The machine WILL run X. It is "a trifle slow." The same machine will
probably run XP, too. It'll even be faster than the slowest XP machine
I have seen. But I'd be WAY to impatient to use it.
Of course, there is a fellow who put a functional web browser into a
Commodore 64. So while spamd might be out of the question in 256k
bringing up a capable system in 256k should be easy, lots of room.
Haven't you ever run across the HTTP server in a minipic and one
serial memory chip?
{^_-} Joanne.
----- Original Message -----
From: "einheit elf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <users@spamassassin.apache.org>
Sent: 2004 October, 28, Thursday 15:37
Subject: Re: spamd still burning CPU in 3.0.1
> Jdow, think about what you're saying - do you really expect us to believe
> that you could even boot redhat 9, let alone do anything useful, in 256 k
> of RAM? I was able to bring up a slackware machine with 4 MB RAM, and even
> run a web server (slowly), but that's about the practical limit, and you
> claim to be running SA in 1/16th that amount of RAM?
>
> ;)
>
> jdow said:
> > Redhat 9 does. It's rather slow. But it does get there. It's for two
users
> > only. But we're both in the 1000+ emails a day class users.
> >
> > {^_^}
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "einheit elf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >> jdow said:
> >>
> >> > I normally run SpamAssassin (2.63) on a slow machine, a
> >> > 166MHz Pentium with only 256k of ram.
> >>
> >> Pray tell, what OS enables you to run SA with only a quarter Meg of
RAM?
> >>
> >> einheit
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
