On 11/07/10 13:57, Kaiting Chen wrote:
I'd like to go with fcron because it seems to work very well for most people, has a lot of features while having a small dependency tree.
I think fcron is kind of heavy for most users.
looking at various recent x86_64 from [core], group 'base', in kilobytes from pacman -Si Installed Size, kernel26 - 114716 coreutils - 13076 binutils - 13272 util-linux-ng - 6992 bash - 3176 texinfo - 2392 udev - 1944 grub - 1900 reiserfsprogs - 1032 jfsutils - 1016 mdadm - 996 sed - 804 attr - 380 fcron - 1240 dcron - 152 While dcron is small, fcron is also small IMHO. I don't use texinfo, grub (that's the GRUB Legacy package), reiserfsprogs, jfstools, mdadm, etc. They're still part of [core]/base. It's harder to guess at the typical RAM usage of the different crons, though it's worth noting that only about 200 kB of fcron is the executables (the daemon executable itself is 86 kB), and the rest is documentation files (yay harmless documentation!). Someone who needs to shrink their system more will probably have to choose packages manually, configure their own kernel, etc. I think this amount of "heaviness" is an okay price to pay for a Unix system with a high quality cron daemon. -Isaac