Well, either a) I'm halucinating or b) there is a use in having a 6k executable.
If I run 12 copies of bash, 301k (static size for me) * 6 = 1806k executable in ram
6k (dynamic size) * 6 = 18k executable in ram
I know I neglected data space, but that should be the same for all and not an issue.
Oh, I forgot. 18k(executable)+370k(dynamic lib)=388k....and 1806k-388k=1418k savings.
I know it is marginally slower to load an executable and link it with a library. But
you're telling me it is faster to load 301k than to load 6k and link it with a library?
I'm talking what I know; I realize I have no numbers to backup what I say.
Would someone please verify this since I have no clue how to determine size usages
of executables, nor load time and link time?
In my experience, X went from a swapp-happy almost-unusable beast to a silent hard drive
when I change from 301k bash and 70k rxvt to 6k bash and 3k rxvt...so imho shaired is
better....this is with a 386sx25 8mb ram...svga @ 1152x900x256...
-- Todd Fries...tfries@umr.edu http://www.cs.umr.edu/~tfries