Why do we strip server binaries?

Chow Loong Jin hyperair at gmail.com
Tue May 3 06:38:35 UTC 2011

On 03/05/2011 13:41, Clint Byrum wrote:
> I had an interesting conversation with Baron Schwartz from Percona (author
> of the 2nd edition of High Performance MySQL and Maatkit) at the MySQL
> Users conference last month regarding what he feels distributions all
> get wrong. One particular pet peeve of his is that we strip our binaries.
> As Baron sees it, this is a *tiny* gain (smaller binaries for the CD)
> for a giant loss, which is the loss of ability to profile and introspect
> a critical piece of software while it is running and, perhaps more
> importantly, while it is failing.
> Its not enough to make it possible to correct the issue. As we all know,
> you have to make the system friendly by default.
> The -dbg packages help, but a) aren't mandatory, and b) don't always
> help with things like oprofile which doesn't know about them.
> I've personally run into this a few times in production usage where a
> problem is particularly hard to wrap one's head around, and I always
> ended up replacing my distro packages with something that was unstripped.

I haven't had an issue that hasn't been resolved with -dbgsym packages so far,
but then again I don't use oprofile.

On the other hand, however, surely it's not a bug in the way we strip packages,
but a bug in oprofile and other $random_tools for not supporting the external
debug symbols?

Kind regards,
Loong Jin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20110503/a6062375/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list