Re: packaging static lib oriented software
Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> > 2. size
> > Again, although shared libraries are only a little larger than
> > static libs, that isn't the whole story. If you are sharing a
> > library among many applications running simultaneously then
> > shared libraries make sense. But with shared libraries, the
> > entire library is loaded while with static libraries only
> > those routines actually used are used. This means that for
> > work which tends to have only one or a few copies running
> > at a time, then static libraries end up using a LOT less
> > RAM. When you are running large jobs, this can be quite
> > important (with a package like lapack using a few hundred
> > meg of RAM is quite common. You don't run more than one of
> > those at a time).
>
> You've missed the fact that Linux uses demand-paged code. If a specific
> page of a library isn't used, it isn't loaded into memory (or is at least
> easily discarded).
>
This may be, but the picture doesn't seem to be that simple. There
are stories that sites have had trouble with a number of people
running the same program when linked against a shared lib. The same
site had no problems when they switched to running a statically
linked version of the program.
That's a little short on details and long on heresay, but I
have no reason to doubt the story.
And don't forget the performance hit.
- Jay
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: