Re: Multia

Randale Sechrest (
Sun, 03 Nov 1996 11:49:15 -0700

Woodstock wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Eric Youngdale wrote:
> > Technically speaking, the dynamic linking doesn't directly affect
> > performance. What it will do is substantially reduce memory consumption, which
> > can lead to less swapping, and this is what can result in the perception of
> > improved performance.
> You're right. But consider a kernel compile. gcc2.7.1 was statically
> linked. gcc is called about 1,000 times during the compile. So, the
> WHOLE gcc needs to be loaded in 1000 times. Dynamically linking, most of
> the code stays in memory, and less load time. But I still agree.
> Dynamic libs reduce memory consumption and disk access time.
> > Nonetheless, a UDB with 24Mb is still a bit short on memory if you
> > are running X with Emacs, Mosaic and trying to compile things, all at once.
> True. 24 MB is fine on a pentuim... 32 bits. But for an Alpha at 64
> bits....... =shiver= I need an upgrade!
> -Woody!
> SysAdmin of WoodyNet!
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Satanists For Life! Satanists For Life!
> MORE abortions mean LESS souls for Satan!
> Satanists For Life! Satanists For Life!
> --
> To unsubscribe: send e-mail to with
> 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Do not send it to

So what about Redhat 4.0, which is what I'm running?

How about replacing the two 4meg SIMMS with two 16s 48meg total- enough
RAM? (or should it be 4 16meg chips?)

I've also considered adding a S3 video card for accelerated performance
under X, but don't know if it's worth it....

To unsubscribe: send e-mail to with
'unsubscribe' as the subject.  Do not send it to

Feedback | Store | News | Support | Product Errata | About Us | Linux Info | Search | JumpWords
No Frames | Show Frames

Copyright © 1995-1997 Red Hat Software. Legal notices