static vs. dynamic

Thomas T. Veldhouse veldy at veldy.net
Wed Nov 15 06:49:30 PST 2000


But generally, static binaries load faster - because there is no overhead of
linking a shared libraries address space.  Having said that - if glibc has
already been loaded - there is probably negligible overhead to link it to
subsequent binaries that try and use it.

Tom Veldhouse
veldy at veldy.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerard Beekmans" <gerard at linuxfromscratch.org>
To: <lfs-apps at linuxfromscratch.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: static vs. dynamic


> On November 14, 2000 09:13 pm, you wrote:
> > one question:
> >
> > i want to run apache, a ftp daemon, qmail, a pop3 daemon, nfs daemon and
> > some other services on a machine.
> >
> > will i gain or loose performance when i use _statically_ linked binaries
> > only?
>
> Loose a little bit because static binaries are much bigger than
dynamically
> linked binaries. When you go run a static apache, ftpd, smtpd, pop3d, nfsd
> and other services that are also all static, your memory will get a little
> bit of a beating.
>
> --
> Gerard Beekmans
> www.linuxfromscratch.org
>
> -*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
>
> --
> Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-apps-request at linuxfromscratch.org
> and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
>
>


-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-apps-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message




More information about the blfs-support mailing list