On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 05:07:48PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > I might believe you about speed, but not about RAM. Memory usage goes up > with static linking because you've got multiple copies of the same thing > loaded into memory.
No. I told about RAM :-). Several years ago i had some research for one project. It needed to run multiple instances of the same program(several thousands of concurrent instances). We tried to achieve maximum memory economy. And we saw that when the program linked statically, each instance consume less memory starting from 6 instances. Thanks to sharing of .text segments. Thus, for something like bash a static linking isn't bad. I have now 12 instances of it running. If it would be static, then not only every script that i run during work day starts faster, but it consume a little less ram. > think I'm wrong, feel free to shoot yourself in the foot, but you > shouldn't be calling Alessandro or the QA team incompetent (that's my > bit...) unless you have some strong new evidence that static linking > improves things in a general-purpose linux distro. No-no. I didn't want to call QA team or Alessandro incompetent. May be some typo or misspelling. I just said that anybody who says "Nothing should be statically linked" is incompetent in this question. Because this is simply not true. -- Олег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)
