On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 14:13, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 14:07, Nick Harring wrote:
>
> > Well, I'll not flame, but I will correct. Stripping removes debugging
> > symbols only which only get loaded, iirc, when you load the binary in a
> > debugger like gdb.
>
> Thanks, I'll have to look more into this as it's something that I'd like
> to understand better.
Let me know if there's anything about my setup that'll help you
investigate. I'm more than happy to help, since my organization benefits
very much from the quality of vpopmail.
>
> > The case for dynamic versus static libraries is a tricky one. With
> > dynamic you do load the same libraries over and over for one shot
> > binaries, however if they execute often enough, like vdelivermail on a
> > busy server, the cache will keep it in memory. Of course, this may also
> > be true of the larger binaries that are statically linked. Generally
> > though you'll end up suffering more with statically linked binaries that
> > get called often because they consume more of your cache, and each is
> > more likely to get expired from the cache since they don't reference
> > anything in common, whereas with a shared library that several often
> > executed binaries load its more likely to stay in cache since the
> > FS/VFS/whatever sees it being accessed more often.
>
> yea, it's probably a small enough trade off one way or the other that it
> wouldn't matter.
In most setups, i.e. less than 1k users, I'd probably agree. For larger
sites though I'd be interested in trying to benchmark, maybe with
something like oProfile?, how much of a difference dynamic libraries
could make for MySQL. I'm currently beginning to address performance
tuning needs on my qmail/vpopmail cluster, so I may have the
time/resources to really investigate this.
>
> -Jeremy
Thanks,
Nick
--
Nicholas harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Webley Systems, Inc.
