Return to BSD News archive
#! rnews 2991 bsd Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!qns3.qns.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!zdc!zdc-e!szdc-e!news From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: TCP latency Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 09:01:19 -0500 Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine Lines: 43 Message-ID: <31EF952F.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.eng.sun.com> <31E7BD6F.167EB0E7@dyson.iquest.net> <4s8sau$jsh@fido.asd.sgi.com> <31E80933.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4saf55$dl5@verdi.nethelp.no> <87k9w6g6u4.fsf@localhost.xs4all.nl> <31E9D0CC.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <87ybklz05q.fsf@localhost.xs4all.nl> <31EAD699.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <87ohle1v5h.fsf@localhost.xs4all.nl> <4slan6$53o@uriah.heep.sax.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5a (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:45805 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23999 J Wunsch wrote: > > (Btw., what is the correct Linux group to post this? It certainly > doesn't belong to networking any more, but it's technical, so advocacy > is as wrong.) > > Peter Mutsaers <plm@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > I stil think it is a waste of diskspace that this > > isn't true for FreeBSD; there is no need to link these statically > > as long as all shared libraries reside in /lib (on the root filesystem > > too). > > You know us as being conservative though. ;-) > > Firstly, the shared libs used to be in /usr/lib, as well as the > non-shared libs on BSD. Thus, they are only available with the /usr > filesystem. You are probably right that stuffing them into /lib > wastes somewhat less space in the root file system. (About 2 MB for > me, from a rough estimation.) > > Second, the dynamic loader is in /usr/libexec/. ;) > > Finally, i think a lot of developers would have mental problems with > making their /bin/sh dependent of yet another binary... > One more related point, even if we ever do normally install with all binaries built shared, there might be an advantage building the shell -static. Of course, the shell would be bigger on disk, but the otherwise savings would be very small. Since shell is forked and execed alot, and the dynamic shared libs appear to make fork/exec take longer on both Linux and FreeBSD, it might be advantageous to make shell -static. Since the shell .text (and perhaps .data) is shared anyway, and the dynamic shared lib scheme will probably make the .data bigger in memory also, it is likely that the memory footprint of the shell will be smaller also if it is built -static. (Specifically if there are multiple shells running in the system.) (On FreeBSD, the shared libs will generally cause the working set to be larger on processes like shell.) John