Subject: Re: why /bin and /sbin static
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Justin Heath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/18/2001 09:58:29
On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 02:22:29PM +0100, email@example.com wrote:
> Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 14:22:29 +0100 (CET)
> From: <email@example.com>
> To: Martin Husemann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: why /bin and /sbin static
> In-Reply-To: <200103181103.f2IB3MW08848@night-porter.duskware.de>
> Precedence: list
> > > i've already recompiled bin and sbin dynamic (without later steps as my
> > > /usr is on / partition) on my 8MB notebook and it's much faster and
> > > about few MB less diskspace!!!
> > It is *faster*? How did you measure? What is the memory impact? Did you measure
> > that as well?
> first measurements:
> booting (from pressing enter on boot command to seeing login:) on my
> 486/66 notebook with 8MB RAM and 850MB disk.
> with static /bin and /sbin: 62 seconds. without: 53 seconds.
> please note that kernel inself boots 12 seconds, there are stuff started
> like sshd and pppd etc..
> so the difference IS large.
> there are big visual difference when using /bin and /sbin commands
> especially ls,ps,df and top when system is loaded and swapping - they
> starts about 2 times faster.
If you like things dynamically linked by all means do it. I do not prefer this method as it seems others do not. If you like your system a certain way configure it that way. I dont believe that NetBSD should make these changes in the name of speed. Look at Linux and FreeBSD speed is common goal among these two groups and I feel as a result they are both fscked in many ways. I like the fact that NetBSD is stable and clean by default. If you dont feel the same way make the changes you prefer.