SFS mounted at boot vs. BIN files and RAM usage

[Marcelo]

Hi,

A week ago I installed Java.sfs and Freemind binaries, both saved to /mnt/home and Java.sfs being mounted at bootup as indicated in this thread by Muggins. That method had the obvious advantage of a very simple installation.

However, at bootup as well as when starting the console I had the message:

ls: cannot access /usr/java/jre*: No such file or directory

which kept my attention, and I also thought that mounting the SFS file at booting should be using more RAM than is really needed.

Today I was able to put a few hours into it, removed both java.sfs and freemind from mnt/home, installed the latest version of Java binaries (6 update 26) so that it now appears as a a plugin in Firefox, as well as freemind (not in /mnt/home), which works fine (launched from the console), and there seems to be a healthy reduction in RAM usage as indicated by 'top' in the console.

I just wanted to check if this impression is right or wrong (may be there were more processes running before that I did not noticed), as it may help users to decide what is the best way to go, depending on how much RAM the machine has / how urgent is the installation.

[Béèm]

Marcelo,
I think I told you before:
Always report the puppy your using and the way installed or operated.
In case you discuss memory issues, report the spec's of your PC
And as you speak about differences in memory usage, give the exact figures from your findings.

This way you get e better answer.

With the details (or in fact lack of) you give it is only guessing.

[Marcelo]

Puppy: Wary 5.1.2, boot from CD, pup_save in hard disk.
Specs: Amd Athlon XP 2400+, 2010.34 MHz / Memory 512 MB

"Top" showed with previous Java.sfs installation mounted at bootup around 480000k memory used, only the console running (although there might have been other processes running in the background, I did not pay attention). Now it shows 404164k used with only the console running.

Sorry for not giving the details before, I thought this must be a known issue and I was trying to confirm/deny my impression with experienced users. If these findings are sort of new a more strict meassure should be taken.

[Béèm]

Your findings, if I understand them well, indicates that the second java sfs has more optimized code, so it takes less in memory.

[Marcelo]

The second java is a binaries file, the first one is an sfs file.

[Béèm]

The first is 1.6u25 the second 1.6u26
So a difference in version.

[Marcelo]

I see

[Béèm]

To understand puppy better, how puppy works is nice reading material.
Happy reading.