Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:19:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Kenneth Culver <culverk@yumyumyum.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root Message-ID: <16091.48994.166392.824851@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030602162027.E11044-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org> References: <16091.44150.539095.704531@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20030602162027.E11044-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kenneth Culver writes: > > I don't want to sound harsh, and I do appreciate your work. However, > > I think the last thing FreeBSD needs now is to get slower. We're > > already far slower than that other free OS. Shouldn't we consider > > making the dynamic root optional and leaving a static root as > > standard? > > Since when are we "far slower" than the other free operating system? > According to all my benchmarks and personal use, the two are about the > same, with FreeBSD "feeling" slightly faster. That said, I think making > the / binaries dynamically linked optional is a good idea. Since SMPng. Try running webstone (available in ports) on a server with multiple 10/100 links, or a gig link. By any metric you choose, 5.x is slower than 4.x, and much slower than linux. Note this is not intended to be a criticism of SMPng. Once the locking in 5.x is completed, I think things will look a _LOT_ better. But as it is now, we're paying most of the price and not reaping many benefits because too much of the system is still under Giant. Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16091.48994.166392.824851>