• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Barebones operating system

 
Tommy Mato
Greenhorn
Posts: 26
Netbeans IDE
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I am writing a processor-bound program that makes good use of multi-threading and runs on multi-core processors. It is essential that I wring every ounce of power out of the machine.

The program will read data from a RAM disk, will save statistics to the RAM disk. No graphics are involved, no internet access (for now), disk access required to load the programs and data into RAM disk, but not required during program running (it runs for a week at a time).

This cunning plan is somewhat spoiled by the fact that the operating system is overoccupied with virus scanning, checking for updates, indexing disks, etc, etc, in multiple unnecessary services.

I'd be interested to hear ideas on what makes a good 'bare-bones' OS. Would I be better with Linux? If so, which one? Is there an easy way to shut down all background tasks and services so that my program can get on and do its job.


Thanks in advance for your help.
 
Jeanne Boyarsky
author & internet detective
Marshal
Posts: 34237
341
Eclipse IDE Java VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Tommy,
UNIX based operating systems (including LINUX) allow you to increase the priority of your process.
 
John Kimball
Ranch Hand
Posts: 96
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
So does Windows, for all the good that it does

If you're serious about looking into Linux, try out Ubuntu server edition.
Of all the Linux distros, it is probably the easiest to get up and running.
 
William Brogden
Author and all-around good cowpoke
Rancher
Posts: 13058
6
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here is what I hate about Windows - I can look at the Task Manager list of processes and see all this things taking a little bite of my memory and cpu time and I have no way of knowing which one is essential and which could easily be removed.

I especially hate applications which think it is ever so very important that they grab CPU time and bandwidth to look for updates - no matter what I am trying to do at the time.

(end rant mode)
Bill
 
John Kimball
Ranch Hand
Posts: 96
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ironically enough, Sun's Java distributions fall into that category.

 
Nitesh Kant
Bartender
Posts: 1638
IntelliJ IDE Java MySQL Database
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Moving to general computing forum ...
 
Kees Jan Koster
JavaMonitor Support
Rancher
Posts: 251
5
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Dear Tommy,

If your app loses performance because of some other processes being present on the machine, I have a simple solution for you: spend € 50,- more on the processor and you get 10% more processor power. Now you have plenty of CPU to do your app *and* the update checking. All that for a few bucks.

In other words: what the hell are you worrying about? Based on what actual performance measurement have you come to this conclusion? How have you measured the overhead incurred by the background processes? And what actual percentages have you seen?
 
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal
Pie
Posts: 24208
35
Chrome Eclipse IDE Mac OS X
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
For all we know, this app is going to run on a tiny machine duct-taped to a weather balloon. If someone tells you they need to get every ounce of power out of a machine, it doesn't make much sense to tell them to buy a bigger machine -- especially to tell them rudely.

Tommy, Linux is an excellent choice for small/embedded systems. You can install a bare-bones distribution and you can turn off everything you don't need (the suggestion to use Ubuntu Server is pretty funny. That's the last think you want to do.) Some distros -- Coyote Linux is one I'm familiar with -- still fit on a single floppy disk!
 
John Kimball
Ranch Hand
Posts: 96
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
YMMV, but the hardest hurdle for Linux newbies is getting up and running.
Ubuntu (including server) is surprisingly good in this respect.

Learning to disable daemon processes is far easier, by comparison.

That said, Coyote looks very promising as an easy-to-use distro.

 
Kees Jan Koster
JavaMonitor Support
Rancher
Posts: 251
5
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Dear All,

If I offended anyone I apologise. I was aiming to poke, not to stab.

My worry is that Tommy is investing time in tuning something that is no problem at all.

I second the choice for some form of free unix. Much more controllable and customisable.
 
Tim Holloway
Saloon Keeper
Pie
Posts: 18108
52
Android Eclipse IDE Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
One of the best arguments for Linux is the "spending lots of time checking for viruses". At the moment, this isn't a problem with Linux.

Unfortunately, while Linux isn't crammed with stealth processes like "rundll32", the stock distros are pretty hefty these days and a lot of the services leverage off of other services, so you can't just run a "ps" and switch off everything you don't know what it's good for.

It might be worth investigating one of the lightweight OS's such as QNX unless it's a requirement that the OS in question be mainstream and/or "inexpensive". Possibly one of the Real-time operating systems.
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic