From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 13 00:35:15 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id AAA00177 for current-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 00:35:15 -0800 Received: from tfs.com (tfs.com [140.145.250.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id AAA00159 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 00:35:11 -0800 Received: from critter.tfs.com by tfs.com (smail3.1.28.1) with SMTP id m0tEuLw-0003wMC; Mon, 13 Nov 95 00:34 PST Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.tfs.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA05249; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 09:34:55 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: critter.tfs.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: peter@haywire.dialix.com (Peter Wemm) cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A couple of things In-reply-to: Your message of "13 Nov 1995 06:58:12 +0800." <485u64$2he$1@haywire.DIALix.COM> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 09:34:55 +0100 Message-ID: <5247.816251695@critter.tfs.com> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > I've not looked at the gzip exec code, but what are the odds that each > executable launched from the crunched image is using up it's own > amount of ram and swap space rather than sharing pages? Or does it > try and be smart by associating the the ungzipped pages with the file > so that when the crunched image is run, the ungzipped pages are reclaimed? No, it doesn't do any kind of optimizations, what it really should do was to create a vnode for the unzipped file, and share the text as usual. Nobody I have talked to finds it worth doing. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.