From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 17:31:23 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EBC16A4CE for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from dyson.jdyson.com (dsl-static-206-246-160-137.iquest.net [206.246.160.137]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3D643FDF for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:31:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from toor@dyson.jdyson.com) Received: from dyson.jdyson.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyson.jdyson.com (8.12.8/8.9.3) with ESMTP id hAJ1VLXQ000997; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:31:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from toor@dyson.jdyson.com) Received: (from toor@localhost) by dyson.jdyson.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAJ1VLhX000996; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:31:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200311190131.hAJ1VLhX000996@dyson.jdyson.com> In-Reply-To: from Garance A Drosihn at "Nov 18, 2003 08:12:12 pm" To: drosih@rpi.edu (Garance A Drosihn) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:31:21 -0500 (EST) From: dyson@iquest.net X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: dyson@iquest.net cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: dyson@iquest.net List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 01:31:23 -0000 Garance A Drosihn said: > At 8:07 AM -0500 11/18/03, dyson@iquest.net wrote: > > > > It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a > > discussion especially when a decision might be incorrect. > > All I wanted to cut off was the claim that this decision had > not been discussed publicly before. It was also annoying that > most the recent complaints (before your message) were issues > that had been explicitly discussed and addressed before the > decision had been reached. Many people seem to be complaining > on what they think we did, as opposed to what we actually did. > Okay... I do understand. > > > If there hadn't been a noticed increase in cost by using > > all-shared-libs, then the measurements were done > > incorrectly. If the decision is made based upon allowing > > for 1.5X (at least) times increase in fork/exec times, and > > larger memory usage (due to sparse allocations), ... > > I do remember some comments about benchmarks, and it was > true that the all-dynamic bin/sbin does come out slower. > Please remember: that several people worked VERY VERY hard to make FreeBSD performant. It would be very difficult to recover the performance after many cascaded performance losses. Throwing away performance is almost an irrevocable decision, and features (once added) are difficult to remove or substantially rearchitect (for performance.) (Once a slow, but workable functionality is added, the cost to recover lost performance after the fact is very very high.) John