From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Nov 9 11:10:51 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 5A11037B4C5 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:10:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id eA9J9wM10639; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:09:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:09:58 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200011091909.eA9J9wM10639@earth.backplane.com> To: Peter Wemm Cc: Warner Losh , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The shared /bin and /sbin bikeshed References: <200011091223.eA9CNQW26294@mobile.wemm.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :Warner Losh wrote: :> : I have a patch that makes /bin and /sbin optionally non-static. For :> : small systems that have / and /usr on the same file system, you can :> : save about 5M-6M of disk space by making /bin and /sbin shared. :> :> It looks like I understated the savings. It saves 6.5M for our cut :> down tree (which tries to grab as few of the /bin and /sbin binaries :> as it can). For the full tree it saves 12-13M (2.1M vs 14.4M). My :> cut down minimal system went from 14.7M to 8.2M. : :I have often wondered exactly what it would take to make a truely shareable :/ without /usr mounted and actually work properly.. : :As I see it: :- /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1 would have to move to / somewhere. :- The ldscripts would need /lib:/usr/lib instead of just /usr/lib for their :paths :- ld-elf.so.1 would have to know that /lib comes before /usr/lib, etc. :- we'd need a selection of .so's in /lib so that /bin and /sbin could be :useable. :- The gcc specs would need a couple of tweaks. : :*then* nsswitch becomes useful so that /bin/ls can dlopen() the .so's for :true plugin name resolvers etc. And /bin/sh can do a 'cd ~user' for something :like nisplus which will never fit inside libc.so.x. : :I've tinkered with this before and got it almost to the point of working but :got distracted and worked on something else instead. Moving libc, libm, and :some others (eg: libcurses) to /lib ate back some of the originally saved :space, but overall it was still *way* in front for disk space. : :Cheers, :-Peter :-- :Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au :"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 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. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message