The horrible truth about Linux libs

[Dave Uhring]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:31:51 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:

>
> Since I like to slag the Linux library issues I thought it would be a good
> idea to post the facts :
>
> [root@H99 root]# du -sk /usr/*
> 262444 /usr/bin
> 4 /usr/dict
> 4 /usr/etc
> 3912 /usr/games
> 92896 /usr/include
> 4624 /usr/kerberos
> 1545608 /usr/lib
> 12044 /usr/libexec
> 88 /usr/local
> 55260 /usr/sbin
> 2249632 /usr/share
> 192888 /usr/src
> 0 /usr/tmp
> 176120 /usr/X11R6
>
> Yes, that is 1.5Gb in /usr/lib and /usr/share on Red Hat Linux 9.

Hmmmm, I have a "complete" RH-9 install here and

[a]# du -sk usr/*
0 usr/X11
197732 usr/X11R6
0 usr/adm
95116 usr/bin
0 usr/dict
136564 usr/doc
40 usr/etc
1080 usr/games
2220 usr/i386-slackware-linux
56728 usr/include
9632 usr/info
628872 usr/lib
23976 usr/libexec
84732 usr/local
29712 usr/man
18944 usr/sbin
536148 usr/share
0 usr/spool
299940 usr/src
0 usr/tmp

[a]# cat etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Linux release 9 (Shrike)

> People call Windows bloatware. Looks like RH9 Linux is there now.

Well, WinXP requires over 2.2GB of drive space on the default install and
that includes -no- servers whatever.

[Dennis Clarke]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dave Uhring wrote:

>
>Hmmmm, I have a "complete" RH-9 install here and

really? Did you install "Everything" or just a developer set or what?

>[a]# du -sk usr/*
>0 usr/X11
>197732 usr/X11R6
>0 usr/adm
>95116 usr/bin
>0 usr/dict
>136564 usr/doc
>40 usr/etc
>1080 usr/games
>2220 usr/i386-slackware-linux
>56728 usr/include
>9632 usr/info
>628872 usr/lib
>23976 usr/libexec
>84732 usr/local
>29712 usr/man
>18944 usr/sbin
>536148 usr/share
>0 usr/spool
>299940 usr/src
>0 usr/tmp
>
>[a]# cat etc/redhat-release
>Red Hat Linux release 9 (Shrike)
>

>> People call Windows bloatware. Looks like RH9 Linux is there now.

>
>Well, WinXP requires over 2.2GB of drive space on the default install and
>that includes -no- servers whatever.

[dclarke@H99 dclarke]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Linux release 9 (Shrike)
[dclarke@H99 dclarke]$ uptime
16:44:48 up 2 days, 3:58, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

OTOH I have Solaris systems with "Everything" installed and they are still in
the zone of the reasonable, for modern systems. A core install for Sol 9 is
a bit bloated for "core" but quite small. I'd like to think that it would be
possible to create a small 4 or 8 node cluster of Sol9_x86 intel systems up
against the same hardware on Linux and get better results. Dunno, no one
will step up to that challenge. I expect that I will have to do the dirty
work on that.

Dennis

[Dave Uhring]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:49:35 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:

> really? Did you install "Everything" or just a developer set or what?

^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, that was the choice I made during the installation. Had to use the
text mode install; the graphical procedure bombed out. RH-8 did the same
thing.

Some of the Asian and E. European fonts and utilities have been removed
since I can neither speak nor read those languages. Besides English I
can read at least some of Spanish and German, but those use ISO-8859-1.
Otherwise this is it:

[root]# df -k
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/hdb5 1023328 105016 918312 11% /
none 257568 0 257568 0% /dev/shm
/dev/hdb7 6356908 4260524 2096384 68% /usr
/dev/hdb8 501216 285948 215268 58% /var
/dev/hdb10 10879204 1242220 9636984 12% /home
[root]# rpm -qa | wc -l
1301

> [dclarke@H99 dclarke]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
> Red Hat Linux release 9 (Shrike)
> [dclarke@H99 dclarke]$ uptime
> 16:44:48 up 2 days, 3:58, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

I just booted mine. I normally use Slackware on that box, but with disk
space to spare I put Dead Rat on it too.

> OTOH I have Solaris systems with "Everything" installed and they are still in
> the zone of the reasonable, for modern systems. A core install for Sol 9 is
> a bit bloated for "core" but quite small. I'd like to think that it would be
> possible to create a small 4 or 8 node cluster of Sol9_x86 intel systems up
> against the same hardware on Linux and get better results. Dunno, no one
> will step up to that challenge. I expect that I will have to do the dirty
> work on that.

The only things I have found to be flaky with Linux - lately - have been
NFS and such crap as reiserfs. Otherwise the OS works pretty well, and
its performance in clusters has been demonstrated to be quite good.

Of course, saying Linux does not necessarily imply "Red Hat". In fact the
first things I do with a RH installation are to replace the kernel with an
SGI XFS kernel, then back up the system, create XFS filesystems and
restore the system.

My Solaris 9 SPARC system - complete install - required less than 1.6GB of
drive space, not including swap.

Your core install for Solaris 9 can probably be reduced significantly.
[url]http://www.sun.com/blueprints/1102/816-5241.pdf[/url]

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme]

[Dennis Clarke]:

>
> Since I like to slag the Linux library issues I thought it would
> be a good idea to post the facts :
> [...]
> Yes, that is 1.5Gb in /usr/lib and /usr/share on Red Hat Linux
> 9.
>
> People call Windows bloatware. Looks like RH9 Linux is there
> now.

what a bogus complaint! 300 MB of that are OpenOffice.org programs
and files. 126 MB are dictionaries for aspell. 74 MB for a database
of all files in RH (for rpm --redhatprovides). 63 MB are locale
files. 55 MB are printer drivers. and so on. "only" 200 MB are
shared libraries. now, load up Solaris with KDE and GNOME, and see if
the shared libraries are any smaller.
--
Kjetil T. | read and make up your own mind
| [url]http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html[/url]

[Rainer Duffner]

Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@yksi.ifi.uio.no> wrote in message news:<1r4r177ew1.fsf@glesvat.ifi.uio.no>...

> [Dennis Clarke]:

> >
> > Since I like to slag the Linux library issues I thought it would
> > be a good idea to post the facts :
> > [...]
> > Yes, that is 1.5Gb in /usr/lib and /usr/share on Red Hat Linux
> > 9.
> >
> > People call Windows bloatware. Looks like RH9 Linux is there
> > now.

>
> what a bogus complaint!

Indeed.
For more accurate figures, the size of the FreeBSD linux_base7 (or
linux_base8) compatiblity package might be a good starting point
because it contains only the bare minimum.
The points that is worth discussing is the fact that nearly all
"Linuxes" tend to dump almost everything into the /usr-hierarchy and
thus creating a WINNT\system32-equivalent installation-mess.
But that may have to do with the fact that in Linux-Land, nobody can
give any hard figures about what actually constitutes the "operating
system" and where "userland" begins....


That's what I like about FreeBSD (and Solaris): I can rm -rf
/usr/local, but I still have a viable operating system.




cheers,
Rainer

[lvirden@yahoo.com]

According to Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org>:
:
: Since I like to slag the Linux library issues I thought it would be a good
: idea to post the facts :
:
:[root@H99 root]# du -sk /usr/*
:262444 /usr/bin
:4 /usr/dict
:4 /usr/etc
:3912 /usr/games
:92896 /usr/include
:4624 /usr/kerberos
:1545608 /usr/lib
:12044 /usr/libexec
:88 /usr/local
:55260 /usr/sbin
:2249632 /usr/share
:192888 /usr/src
:0 /usr/tmp
:176120 /usr/X11R6
:
: Yes, that is 1.5Gb in /usr/lib and /usr/share on Red Hat Linux 9.
:
: People call Windows bloatware. Looks like RH9 Linux is there now.

Hmm - anyone want to compare the space requirements after downloading and
installing the software needed on an xp system to upgrade it to equivalent
functionality with red hat linux ? Might be an interesting comparison.


--
The Tenth Annual Tcl/Tk Conference <URL: [url]http://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2003[/url] >
Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting
should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
<URL: mailto:lvirden@yahoo.com > <URL: [url]http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/[/url] >

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme]

[Rainer Duffner]:

>
> For more accurate figures, the size of the FreeBSD linux_base7 (or
> linux_base8) compatiblity package might be a good starting point
> because it contains only the bare minimum.

one man's bare minimum is another's outrageous luxury. is libXaw3d
minimum or luxury?

> The points that is worth discussing is the fact that nearly all
> "Linuxes" tend to dump almost everything into the /usr-hierarchy
> and thus creating a WINNT\system32-equivalent installation-mess.

no, since the package system works well. (it works well in Solaris,
too, of course. FreeBSD doesn't have one.)

> But that may have to do with the fact that in Linux-Land, nobody
> can give any hard figures about what actually constitutes the
> "operating system" and where "userland" begins....

what's the OS in Solaris? SUNWcsr? will you include SUNWcsu?

for Red Hat Linux, I think the packages in "System Environment/Base"
is a fair first approximation of of defining a minimal system. the
size of it is:

rpm -qa --qf '%{size}\t%{name}\t%{group}\n' |
grep "System Environment/Base" | awk '{s+=$1}END{print s/1024}'
96960.3

(some of these packages can actually be uninstalled, so the true value
is smaller than this.)

> That's what I like about FreeBSD (and Solaris): I can rm -rf
> /usr/local, but I still have a viable operating system.

no Linux system installs stuff in /usr/local either.

--
Kjetil T. | read and make up your own mind
| [url]http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html[/url]