| 1 |
On 4/23/20 4:45 AM, lego12239@××××××.ru wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:24:07PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 3 |
>> FWIW, I do know there are situations where static linking is the right |
| 4 |
>> thing to do. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> If you project require strong security, than it would be simpler to use static linking. |
| 7 |
> If you have many instances of the same program or have many shortlived processes of the |
| 8 |
> same program, than static linking is better(for ram and speed). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Michael, just read about history of shared object. That was not technical decision, |
| 11 |
> that was marketing decision. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I might believe you about speed, but not about RAM. Memory usage goes up |
| 15 |
with static linking because you've got multiple copies of the same thing |
| 16 |
loaded into memory. And that makes the performance argument tricky as |
| 17 |
well: you're saving a bit of CPU time on function calls, but maybe your |
| 18 |
cache is also filled up with those same copies of the same stuff, and as |
| 19 |
a result things actually get slower as you hit the disk to load the 22nd |
| 20 |
copy of a library. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ignoring that, the faster load time and speed improvements were minor to |
| 23 |
begin with. It's not worth making your system annoying to manage. If you |
| 24 |
think I'm wrong, feel free to shoot yourself in the foot, but you |
| 25 |
shouldn't be calling Alessandro or the QA team incompetent (that's my |
| 26 |
bit...) unless you have some strong new evidence that static linking |
| 27 |
improves things in a general-purpose linux distro. |
Archives