Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:38:01 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything Message-ID: <200311190238.hAJ2c1b4096141@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200311182307.hAIN7Wpm000717@dyson.jdyson.com> <20031118182148.P35215@pooker.samsco.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:> :> As far as I'm concerned, this is a non-issue. Identifying which static :> binaries need to be replaced is now a solved problem, replacing them is :> easy, and if binary patches are used, there is effectively no impact on :> bandwidth usage either. : :Bandwidth is still a concern for a lot of people, and this has the :potential to save significant bandwidth in many situations. :.. :Scott I would not consider this a viable argument since binary downloads are usually compressed. A compressed /bin stacks up as follows (from 4.x): -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4034560 Nov 18 18:34 /tmp/x1.tar static -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 849920 Nov 18 18:34 /tmp/x2.tar dynamic -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1860215 Nov 18 18:34 /tmp/x1.tgz static -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 354576 Nov 18 18:34 /tmp/x2.tgz dynamic So you are talking about 1.5 MBytes less bandwidth, which is nothing compared to the cost of doing a full install over the net. Yah, yah, /sbin too... but you get the idea. It certainly isn't enough of a difference to justify going to a dynamic /bin and /sbin. I'm not saying there aren't other arguments, just that this isn't one of them. -Matt Matthew Dillon <dillon@backplane.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200311190238.hAJ2c1b4096141>