Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:27:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> To: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> Cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@FreeBSD.ORG>, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VM load with static binaries (Re: cvs commit: ports/shells/bash2) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005231222000.47409-100000@dt051n0b.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <20000523192328.A16012@cons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 23 May 2000, Martin Cracauer wrote:
> Do you realize that several running instances of one static binary
> share the same VM space and cause *less* system load? Unless you use
> gzip'ed binaries, of course.
>
> Shared libraries are only an advantage (with regards to VM space) when
> several *different* binaries that are linked to the *same* shared
> library run simultaneously (typical X11 situation).
Yes, actually, I am aware of that. However, 'ldd bash' tells me
that the only things bash is linking to are libncurses and libc. So, I
would think that since a lot of stuff is already using those two
libraries, (most significantly, xterm, which is where almost all of my
bash's run) that it would use less system resources to have the shell
linked dynamically. This is something that I'd be happy to test
empirically if you want to show me precise steps to do so. I'm actually
eager to learn more about this.
Doug
--
"Live free or die"
- State motto of my ancestral homeland, New Hampshire
Do YOU Yahoo!?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0005231222000.47409-100000>