Generally on Apple platforms the move here would be putting the shared binary into a dynamic .framework rather then trying to eliminate the shared dependency. Is this a limitation of authoring it in Go that it has to be entirely static?
As a user I’d prefer faster startup over shaving off a couple MB tbh.
Reducing Tailscale’s binary size on macOS
11–20 of 34 posts
Re: Reducing Tailscale’s binary size on macOS
#12Guys, please figure out a way to reduce your footprint on openwrt. 11452 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 11.2M Sep 1 2021 /usr/sbin/tailscaled 7612 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 7.4M Sep 1 2021 /usr/sbin/tailscale I love tailscale, but it forces me to use usb sticks on most of my openwrt routers.
Re: Reducing Tailscale’s binary size on macOS
#13I seem to remember reading that upx had a performance impact (startup times?). @mihaip, have you been able to measure any changes before/after?
Re: Reducing Tailscale’s binary size on macOS
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a user I’d prefer faster startup over shaving off a couple MB tbh.
Calling dlopen is perhaps one of the slowest way to bring in libraries on Darwin.
Re: Reducing Tailscale’s binary size on macOS
#151.5 MB for a stub binary which does nothing but load and call a symbol from another file seems a little excessive in its own right.
Re: Reducing Tailscale’s binary size on macOS
#161.5 MB for a stub binary which does nothing but load and call a symbol from another file seems a little excessive in its own right.
Re: Reducing Tailscale’s binary size on macOS
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a user I’d prefer faster startup over shaving off a couple MB tbh.
Even if so that takes benchmarking on the target systems. Linking can be fast compared to reading a few extra MB from disk.
Re: Reducing Tailscale’s binary size on macOS
#18Has anyone else encountered this issue?
Re: Reducing Tailscale’s binary size on macOS
#19Generally on Apple platforms the move here would be putting the shared binary into a dynamic .framework rather then trying to eliminate the shared dependency. Is this a limitation of authoring it in Go that it has to be entirely static?
It could also be a legacy of a lot of the team coming from Google, which statically links everything except glibc.
Re: Reducing Tailscale’s binary size on macOS
#20Guys, please figure out a way to reduce your footprint on openwrt. 11452 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 11.2M Sep 1 2021 /usr/sbin/tailscaled 7612 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 7.4M Sep 1 2021 /usr/sbin/tailscale I love tailscale, but it forces me to use usb sticks on most of my openwrt routers.