Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3C92059B.60D46437@lapo.it> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:30:51 +0100 From: Lapo Luchini X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: it,en,fr,es,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: RFP: UPX References: <2070817630 DOT 20020315164227 AT logos-m DOT ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This will totally defeat the features that most modern OSes have, > mapping pages from executable and loading them on demand, sharing > common read-only pages between different instances of one application, > etc. This can be a stron objection for exes that ofter are loaded more than once (apache and the like). Just for the records Egor is referencing to this: (taken from upx.html of upx120w.zip) NOTES FOR WIN32/PE The PE support in UPX is quite stable now, but definitely there are still some incompabilities with some files. Because of the way UPX (and other packers for this format) works, you can see increased memory usage of your compressed files. If you start several instances of huge compressed programs you're wasting memory because the common segements of the program won't get shared across the instances. On the other hand if you're compressing only smaller programs, or running only one instance of larger programs, then this penalty is smaller, but it's still there. If you're running executables from network, then compressed programs will load faster, and require less bandwidth during execution. -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini lapo AT lapo DOT it (PGP & X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)