Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:58:07 -0700 From: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root Message-ID: <20030602225807.GI87863@roark.gnf.org> In-Reply-To: <20030602224734.GC1345@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030602171942.GA87863@roark.gnf.org> <xzp4r3844eb.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20030602202947.GE87863@roark.gnf.org> <xzpznl02nry.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200306022125.h52LPhhc002291@apollo.backplane.com> <20030602214956.GG87863@roark.gnf.org> <20030602224734.GC1345@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--d6DpgemkcHclpK+A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 03:47:34PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:49:56PM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote: > >=20 > > Actually, it was a diskless boot, so it was in the system cache. =3D) I > > know this is a rigged demo, but the point is the same, yes, it's slower, > > but we also have a huge gain from going to a dynamically linked world. > > It would also serve as encouragement to get things like pre-binding and > > caching working. >=20 > Please do not rectify or relativate the performance loss of a 100% > shared world by hinting towards pre-binding and/or caching. If the > success of a 100% shared world depends on prebinding, then I suggest > we abandon the attempt right here, right now. I don't think it is > realized how big a wormhole prebinding really is. I'm not saying we need either solution for a shared world to work. I was trying to say that if people think that a shared world is slow that it might cause someone to do something clever and get pre-binding or the like working. Again, it's not strictly needed. > I support a 100% shared world, but we should not abandon staticly > linked /bin and /sbin. Let's just create the mechanics to allow > one to choose for whatever reason one might have to choose one way > or the other and let's make sure that we nailed it completely. I > don't want to see any entries in UPDATING to overcome switching > from one to the other or to describe the steps required to do a > trivial source upgrade. My hope is to do just that and make it as painless as possible to switch. It's non-trivial and considering the easy with which foot- shooting can commence, I hestiate to ask people to touch any of my patches. > I suggest we get the functionality in without actually changing the > default. We can change the default anytime after that when we are > confident that we covered everything and have understanding of the > overall impact of switching... I'm trying to provide options. I'm encouraging a dynamic world (and think it's the correct solution for 5.2, esp if we are going to be touting our NSS support). -gordon --d6DpgemkcHclpK+A Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+29Z/Ru2t9DV9ZfsRAg6EAKCvMeTT2L/PQ/KOQ39YUlovOwvbGgCfQD8J i1sgJf5Xy5Qxu6V2Y3tW00g= =bCOw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --d6DpgemkcHclpK+A--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030602225807.GI87863>