From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Nov 9 15:22:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (placeholder-dcat-1076843399.broadbandoffice.net [64.47.83.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A844337B479; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:22:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id eA9NMHN12920; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:22:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:22:17 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200011092322.eA9NMHN12920@earth.backplane.com> To: Mike Smith Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Peter Wemm , Warner Losh , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The shared /bin and /sbin bikeshed References: <200011092240.eA9Meu903694@mass.osd.bsdi.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :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. This is not exactly true. The difference between the static binary and shared binary is that *ALL* the text pages in the static binary are clean. A shared binary dirties many, many more pages to generate the library relocations - as much as 60K for a simple program that links into libc. So in a low memory situation the static binary will win, because clean pages use the already-existing binary file image as backing store and do not have to go to swap. They can simply be discarded. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message