Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:19:40 -0600 From: Bob Willcox <bob@immure.com> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> Cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <20031202221940.GF38911@luke.immure.com> In-Reply-To: <3FCD0774.60807@acm.org> References: <200311250106.hAP16qNp018512@realtime.exit.com> <200311251212.59933.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <3FCCF094.5040006@tcoip.com.br> <3FCD0774.60807@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:43:16PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> >Now, my machines usually get by themselves, but all *I* do on them is
> >sh(1) intensive, so I'll probably be using the static root option when
> >it comes time to upgrade them to 5.x.
>
> The static root option exists for people with special requirements:
> * Use a lot of shell scripts
> * Have very high performance requirements for those scripts
> * Does not use LDAP, NIS, or other networked directory services
> (I want to move NIS out of libc. Its privileged position
> relative to LDAP and other services is rather dated.)
What impact, if any, will this have on those of us that use NIS and
still want a statically linked root? I have been using NIS for years
and see no compelling reason to switch to LDAP (i.e., NIS satisfies my
needs, is configured, and working).
Bob
--
Bob Willcox First Law of Procrastination:
bob@immure.com Procrastination shortens the job and places the
Austin, TX responsibility for its termination on someone else (i.e.,
the authority who imposed the deadline).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031202221940.GF38911>