From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Nov 10 7:48: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7630537B4C5; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:47:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA02373; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:47:38 +1100 Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:48:24 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Peter Wemm Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Mike Smith , Matt Dillon , Warner Losh , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The shared /bin and /sbin bikeshed In-Reply-To: <200011101318.eAADImW34016@mobile.wemm.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Peter Wemm wrote: > Besides, having a shared libc is a win for memory because you get the same > physical pages mapped in over and over again, rather than having many many > seperate copies of libc mapped into different processes with no sharing. This depends on the process mix. For processes that have a few forked copies running concurrently, static linkage takes more memory because the process text is shared and the process data and mapping overheads are much smaller than for shared linkage (libc has poor locality...). I used to use shared linkage for everything until I understood this point. Now I use static linkage for everything except perl and ports. This is faster, and seems to take about the same amount of memory for my process mix. It takes slightly more than 2 cents worth of disk space. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message