Re: Q: shared libraries

The only tiny problem I have with shared libraries is the small added management of making sure the shared libraries are available at runtime. I have no experience on this, and it may be insignificant. However so is the space we would save using shared libraries. Our executables take up about 80 MB althogether, but that's insignificant in itself with todays cheap disks, and particularly when you compare to the typical database size we have. johnl@informix.com (Jonathan Leffler) wrote: :>From: Casper Boden-Cummins <bodec@sherwood.co.uk> :>Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 15:30:38 -0800 :>X-Informix-List-Id: <news.31097> :> :>Nils Myklebust wrote: :>> As I understand it you will gain nothing from shared libraries if all :>> users run the same program. :This is probably correct, but only if the users are all strictly running :one executable which is statically linked. As soon as you have more than :one program being run, you will probably benefit from using shared :libraries. I'd use shared libraries without any qualms unless someone :really demonstrated a significant performance benefit from not using them, :and I'd then use static libraries for just that one program. I'd still use :shared libraries for most purposes, if only because of the size reduction :of the executable. :>Is this because only one program image is resident in memory, while a :>separate stack handles execution for each process? :Yes. :>If this is so, it this universal across Unices? :All versions you're likely to come across. If you were playing with :archaic versions, then maybe not, but it would have to be very archaic. :Yours, :Jonathan Leffler (johnl@informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h> Nils.Myklebust@idg.no NM Data AS, P.O.Box 9090 Gronland, N-0133 Oslo, Norway My opinions are those of my company The Informix FAQ is at http://www.iiug.org