From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Nov 9 14:47:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD6837B4C5; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id eA9MllN09692; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:47:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:47:47 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Mike Smith Cc: Matt Dillon , Peter Wemm , Warner Losh , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The shared /bin and /sbin bikeshed Message-ID: <20001109144747.E5112@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20001109112328.T5112@fw.wintelcom.net> <200011092240.eA9Meu903694@mass.osd.bsdi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <200011092240.eA9Meu903694@mass.osd.bsdi.com>; from msmith@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 02:40:56PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Mike Smith [001109 14:35] wrote: > > * Matt Dillon [001109 11:11] wrote: > > > > > > I'd recommend against the linux /lib + /usr/lib model, it's a big > > > mess. I don't see much of a point in cutting the size of /bin and > > > /sbin down, they are already fairly small (3.8M and 10M) and it > > > isn't as though we need the disk space! The static nature of > > > /bin and /sbin have saved me more times then I can remember. I also > > > have unfond memories of blowing /lib up under linux and not being > > > able to do anything. > > > > root on a Linux box is unable to do squat when the machine is almost > > out of memory because he can't map in /lib/libc.so to run 'ps' or > > even another copy of bash. > > Um. And root on a BSD box is equally screwed when there's no memory left > to map in the text segment of 'ps' which just happens to contain another > copy of libc. > > The difference being that if libc is shared, it's already mapped in for > the hundreds of other programs using it, so you're *better* off, not > worse. The real difference here is that I've seen several instances of a Linux box unable to cope with this situation and a FreeBSD box cope. Linux locked up and FreeBSD 'gracefully' shot a process dead and free'd up some memory. What "should" happen versus what _did_ happen doesn't make what did happen untrue. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message