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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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).
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031202221940.GF38911>