> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Simmons [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:11 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Bacula-devel] Proposal: Revise configure options > > >>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 00:47:01 -0700, Kevin Keane said: > > Accept-Language: en-US > > Content-Language: en-US > > acceptlanguage: en-US > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: James Harper [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:31 PM > > > To: Phil Stracchino; Kern Sibbald > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Bacula-devel] Proposal: Revise configure options > > > > > > > *If you don't see the compile warnings*, there is no indication > > > > that > > > you > > > > haven't built a fully working static client ... until you try to > > > > use > > > it > > > > in a bare-metal-restore situation on a minimal rescue CD. On the > > > system > > > > you built it from, with the build glibc available, it will work > > > perfectly. > > > > > > > > > > I'm curious, what is the attraction of the static client these days? > > > It might have been an issue when people were using 2.88MB floppy > > > disks and had to run with the minimum possible configuration, but > > > any DR media these days has plenty of space for dynamic libraries, > > > and will have more than enough memory that a ramdisk isn't going to > > > run out of memory, so I wouldn't have thought it would be such a big deal > anymore. > > > > It's not just the disk space. In fact, I'd argue that statically > > linked applications take up more, not less, space. > > > > A far more important issue is the one Phil pointed out: you also need > > to have the exactly correct version of the runtime libraries > > available. When you are in a rescue situation (by definition strapped > > for time), you don't want to find bacula requires a different glibc > > than the one the rescue CD has. Having a statically linked one will > > all but guarantee that it will actually run when you need it how you > > need it, even if you booted off a different Linux version. > > I'm puzzled by this because I have (non-Bacula) code linked with the glibc > shared library that runs fine on any linux from Red Hat 9 through to the very > latest releases of all major distros. > > The compatibility problems are usually caused by other libraries, not glibc.
That wasn't an actual problem as much as by way of explanation why I believe a static version would be beneficial in some situations. For me, it would simply raise the confidence level quite a bit - during a disaster recovery, that's critical. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
