Re: ucd-snmp vs. net-snmp (foot print)

2009/8/3 Juliana Purjo <[email protected]>:
>> From: [email protected]
>> Given that in most environments, run-time size is not a significant concern,
>> using a separate buffer for each object feels to be a simpler, and more
>> (time-)efficient approach.
>
> Also in embedded Linux, the executable size is more important than runtime
> memory size. The flash sizes are still measured in single digit megabytes...
> And the linked application size seems to be the same whether you have 100kb
> of static buffer or 1kb of static buffer, probably the number of static
> buffers also does not make a difference.

Regarding runtime size: many embedded systems use SDRAM memory. The
smallest SDRAM modules being sold today that I know of are 64 MB in
size. And I know of embedded systems with 32 MB RAM in which UCD-SNMP
has been deployed successfully.

Regarding static buffers: the space occupied in an executable by a
static buffer that has been stored by the compiler in a BSS section is
independent of the buffer size.

Regarding executable size: a filesystem like cramfs, cromfs or
squashfs can be a great help to reduce the amount of non-volatile
storage occupied by an executable.

Bart.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
[email protected]
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users