Subject: Re: /rescue, crunchgen'ed?
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Allen Briggs <email@example.com>
Date: 08/30/2002 15:46:05
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 12:26:46PM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> Yes, but it's MUCH LESS FRAGILE with distributed files than it is with
> A Single Binary!
This keeps being repeated, but is it true? In one crunchgen binary,
there is one copy of the code. In N files, there are N copies of
(portions of) libc. And there are some alignment issues, too. Has
anyone bothered to make a list of the critical binaries in /bin (and
/sbin and their sizes) to compare with the static, crunchgen binary?
Is it really a significant difference?
Personally, I've been bitten by a shared-only system. Once. But I'm
still alive today (much to the chagrin of some, I'm sure ;-).
> I've heard it stated that we're trying to avoid having to use a CD or
> floppy-based rescue.
I don't think so, in general. The /rescue was proposed, I believe, to
answer this "need," but it seems to me it's a nice convenience--not a
need. If I lose disk blocks or hose myself in some other, basic way,
I'm swearing enough that a little more won't make that much difference. ;-)
Allen Briggs firstname.lastname@example.org
http://www.wasabisystems.com/ Quality NetBSD CDs, Sales, Support, Service
NetBSD development for Alpha, ARM, M68K, MIPS, PowerPC, SuperH, XScale, etc...