Redox OS 0.3.3 Released, Lowers RAM Usage

[log0]

How exactly does a ~40MB OS (judging on the ISO image) end up using 480MB? That sounds absurdly high.

They simply allocate some memory by default. Given that they still recommend running it in a VM, memory consumption should be the last thing to be concerned about.

[blacknova]

Mavman, https://doc.redox-os.org/kernel/kernel/

[nomadewolf]

How exactly does a ~40MB OS (judging on the ISO image) end up using 480MB? That sounds absurdly high.

Well, is a brand new Kernel written in a very recent language.
Therefore it doens't surprise me it'll take some time to mature. And 500 MB doesn't look like too much for a modern OS running on a VM, to me at least...
Still, given how recent this project has been around, i give props to the devs for the fast pace and visible improvments.

I can't stress how excited i am for this project.

[Mavman]

Mavman, https://doc.redox-os.org/kernel/kernel/

Thank you for the link!!! I was not aware of that "detail"...

I got to think it was MK based on their "Microkernel Design" item in their front page... details are always in the small reading, right?!

so... this leaves me with Genode+seL4 or Robigalia

[torsionbar28]

That kind of BS. QNX is microkernel OS and it's system requirements aren't that high. Minix3 is microkernel and it's requirements aren't high either.
Redox, NT, BeOS are all hybrid kernels and NT and BeOS requirements are pretty low.
I don't think Redox high memory usage is just kernel problem.

Don't forget VXworks, probably the most widely deployed microkernel OS out there. It'll run with 4 MB of RAM. Four Megabytes! VXworks in its smallest configuration, is only 20kb (yes, kilobytes).

[AndyChow]

Don't forget VXworks, probably the most widely deployed microkernel OS out there. It'll run with 4 MB of RAM. Four Megabytes! VXworks in its smallest configuration, is only 20kb (yes, kilobytes).

Linux can also do that. Maybe not 20kb, but I've seen it at ~200kb for 2.6.32. Of course, you lose slab allocation, and everything is going to be slow.

[blacknova]

Linux can also do that. Maybe not 20kb, but I've seen it at ~200kb for 2.6.32. Of course, you lose slab allocation, and everything is going to be slow.

Not the point really, no one said that monolithic kernel can't be small. The point is that microkernels are not necessary resource hogs.

[duby229]

Not the point really, no one said that monolithic kernel can't be small. The point is that microkernels are not necessary resource hogs.

Maybe not resource hog exactly, but I was under the impression that microkernels absolutely require a sophisticated message buss, and that requirement means that it must use more resources than a monolithic kernel. And that in fact that's the biggest reason to choose a monolithic design over a micrkernel design?

[AndyChow]

Not the point really, no one said that monolithic kernel can't be small. The point is that microkernels are not necessary resource hogs.

I thought we were talking about the reason why the OS uses so much or so little memory, and I'm pretty sure in both cases it's completely related to memory allocation.

Microkernels used to be resource hogs because the page cache implementation was poor. Now the microkernels allocate more memory, but it does so to improve performance.

That's my belief anyway.

[starshipeleven]

Don't forget VXworks, probably the most widely deployed microkernel OS out there. It'll run with 4 MB of RAM. Four Megabytes! VXworks in its smallest configuration, is only 20kb (yes, kilobytes).

VxWorks is a RTOS designed for low-level stuff, so yeah, it is a microkernel too but it is not dealing with anything a PC OS is dealing with.

Might be an apples and bananas comparison.