Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Japheth J.C. Cleaver wrote: >> (Our mail server saw a >> performance boost of about 20% when we statically linked our process >> chain.) > > I *very* much doubt those numbers. Using PIC and the runtime linker > does not add that much overhead. Never has, never will. If you compare > apples and oranges you can come up with such numbers, of course. > In the interests of correcting the record... After researching this I've realized I was mistaken. That speed gain involved not _just_ static linking, but the migration to dietlibc for some of the most heavily used portions, as well as replacing bash with a static ash for all our shell forking (lots). Those may have contributed a significant portion of that speed bump. I stand by my original point, however. Some run environments (like our qmail/vpopmail clusters) benefit from changes that this thread (and the ones regarding removing or bastardizing dietlibc on fedora-extras) proposes making more difficult. Let's be perl-like: Make the easy things easy (dynamic linking as normal) and the hard things possible (optional -devel-static packages). Regards, -jc -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
