[arch-general] Replace dcron once again?

Isaac Dupree ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org
Sun Nov 7 23:15:05 CET 2010

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.


More information about the arch-general mailing list