From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21125AA2 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:30:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Jan 2015 03:30:28 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,862,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="439427875" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.243.20.48]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 12 Jan 2015 03:17:41 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:30:26 +0025 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:30:26 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Vlad Zolotarov Message-ID: <20150112113025.GC13136@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <54B2AE86.3050203@cloudius-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54B2AE86.3050203@cloudius-systems.com> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Shlomi Livne Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] What is the best way to distribute a DPDK-based app? X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:30:30 -0000 On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 07:10:30PM +0200, Vlad Zolotarov wrote: > Hi, > guys could you share form your experience what is the best way to distribute > the DPDK libraries with the DPDK-based app: > > * Is there any significant benefit in compiling the libraries on a > target machine? > * Is there an already existing DPDK-libs packaging: I've noticed there > is some Fedora RPM package with DPDK libs but it's lacking > pmd-driver's libs and they are the main component we are using, > therefore we can't use it. > > Thanks in advance, > vlad > The default in DPDK is to build a statically linked binary, in which case no separate distribution of libraries is necessary. This also gives best performance. If you know ahead of time what the minimum cpu hardware of your target is, it's probably worthwhile doing a compile of your app/libs for that minimum hardware, especially if you care about getting best performance. If a few percent drop in performance is not a big issue, then compiling up for the "default" target is the safest path to take. For distributing the libs as shared libs, the same logic applies. /Bruce