[yocto] I hate busybox!

Paul D. DeRocco pderocco at ix.netcom.com
Tue Sep 15 18:21:58 PDT 2015


> From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.khem at gmail.com] 
> 
> I agree on busybox differences but sometimes its not about 
> the utilities they are needed for some sundry work.
> What would be interesting to know is how much size increase 
> is caused by replacing all busybox functionality
> with other utilities and also RAM consumption. That can give 
> valuable information for someone who is assembling embedded 
> system stack and help him/her the decision making. embedded 
> systems of today might have more memory and what not, but 
> they are also running more
> complex applications than in past, so software bloat has 
> caught up with more memory, in the end you still need to be 
> cautious about the footprint and equation remains almost same.

As I said in another message, my 32-bit Intel system image increased by
36MB when I added the full utilities. The busybox executable is half a
meg, while individual full-featured commands are generally a few tens of
kilobytes. I don't know if running busybox loads the whole thing into
physical RAM, or if it only allocates the pages that are actually touched;
that would determine the relative RAM use, I suppose.

-- 

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco at ix.netcom.com 




More information about the yocto mailing list