Subject: FVWM: FVWM size

From: [email-masked] (Justin L. Gaither)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:41:14 -0400

I tested fvwm2 .42  with xpm, xpm titlebuttons, and xpm titlebar supported on solaris2.5

WM      SZ   RSS
fvwm2  2296  1976
pager  1904  1584
------------------
total  4200  3560

olvwm  4688  3712

not much different but look what you get with FVWM!

I will try fvwm 1.24 later.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Justin Gaither                      V                (919)850-6573|
| 1630SX HW   Development     +---------------+    FAX (919)850-6590|
| Alcatel Network Systems     | A L C A T E L |                     |
| [email-masked]    +---------------+    Raleigh, NC      |
|                                                         why not!  |
| http://sdrnr1.aur.alcatel.com:8000/~jgaither                      |
--------------------------------------------------------------------+
#          LINUX because a 486 is a terrible thing to WASTE!        #
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Mark Borges <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Apr 1996 15:12:05 -0600

>> On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:41:14 -0400,
>> Justin L Gaither(jg) wrote:
jg> I tested fvwm2 .42 with xpm, xpm titlebuttons, and xpm titlebar
jg> supported on solaris2.5

jg> WM      SZ   RSS
jg> fvwm2  2296  1976
jg> pager  1904  1584
jg> ------------------
jg> total  4200  3560

jg> olvwm  4688  3712

last pid: 21396;  load averages:  1.34,  1.50,  1.61     14:56:01
291 processes: 274 sleeping, 12 zombie, 5 on cpu
Cpu states: 59.5% idle, 32.5% user,  7.2% kernel,  0.9% iowait,  0.0% swap
Memory: 214M real, 59M free, 225M swap, 453M free swap
  PID USERNAME PRI NICE  SIZE   RES STATE   TIME   WCPU    CPU COMMAND
21396 mdb      -15    0 1980K 1136K cpu     0:05  5.53% 19.52% top
14424 mdb       34    0 2296K  852K sleep   0:18  0.00%  0.00% fvwm-2.0.42
14434 mdb       34    0 2064K  676K sleep   0:03  0.00%  0.00% FvwmPager
16556 mdb       24    0 1648K  928K sleep   0:02  0.00%  0.00% zsh-2.6b13h13
14442 mdb       18   16 3336K  896K sleep   0:01  0.00%  0.00% xbuffy
14432 mdb       34    0 2084K  700K sleep   0:01  0.00%  0.00% FvwmButtons
14440 mdb       34    0 1576K  480K sleep   0:01  0.00%  0.00% rclock
16554 mdb       34    0 2256K 1088K sleep   0:00  0.00%  0.00% rxvt-2.15
14400 mdb       34    0  664K  296K sleep   0:00  0.00%  0.00% .xsession

The resident size of fvwm2, which I think is the more important, is
reasonably small (smaller than zsh and rxvt at least).

If you prefer ucb ps format:

  $ psgrep fvwm
  USER       PID CP   SZ  RSS TT       S    START  TIME COMMAND
  mdb      14432 80  521  175 ?        S 12:28:33  0:01 FvwmButtons
  mdb      14424180  574  213 ?        S 12:28:28  0:19 fvwm -display hpx06:0
  mdb      14434 80  516  169 ?        S 12:28:33  0:03 FvwmPager

But the bad news is that many people have HP Aptrex Xterminals here,
which have downloadable (to the Xterm) mwm code that is smaller than
fvwm in the final analysis:

  $ psgrep mwm
  jtb      16303 80  317  115 ?        S 13:18:32  0:00 xt.mwm wmpid=16302

I know it's an unfair comparison (mwm takes up X terminal memory in
addition to the host shown here), but as far as the host is concerned
mwm is lighter, even smaller than FvwmPager. I can't believe I just
typed that ;-(. I just hope the sysadmins aren't monitoring this in
this way. At least I can justify it based on the fact fvwm is the only
virtual window manager currently available here (mwm-2 is still not an
option).

Anyway, just some more numbers/thoughts to chew on in this thread, and
to point out that if Xterminals are in the picture, the fvwm advantage
may not be as clear-cut as we'd hoped.

-- 
  -mb-