Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!sun!gorodish!guy
From: guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: multiple-machine executables for Suns?
Message-ID: <25164@sun.uucp>
Date: Sat, 8-Aug-87 02:04:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.25164
Posted: Sat Aug  8 02:04:49 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 11:06:07 EDT
References: <8708@brl-adm.ARPA>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 15

> The second is that this scheme plus the extra inode for each binary
> probably takes up at least as much space as your scheme (ie. not much,
> but the Sun solution is also non-zero, there ain't no such thing as a
> free lunch) so Sun's comment on disk space does not seem to hold water
> unless I am missing something.

The difference is that, unless there are separate sets of executables
for servers and for other diskful machines, all machines would have
executables containing code for all architectures with the "archived
executable image" scheme; this isn't the case with the "multiple
directories" scheme, since you can selectively pull in only the
executables that are intended to run on the machine.
	Guy Harris
	{ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy
	guy@sun.com