From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 3 01:11:58 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C201537B401 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 01:11:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.nsu.ru (mx.nsu.ru [212.192.164.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD3843FAF for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 01:11:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from danfe@regency.nsu.ru) Received: from mail by mx.nsu.ru with drweb-scanned (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19N6wj-0007UZ-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 15:15:05 +0700 Received: from regency.nsu.ru ([193.124.210.26]) by mx.nsu.ru with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19N6wQ-0007Mt-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 15:14:46 +0700 Received: from regency.nsu.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by regency.nsu.ru (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h538BVM5043600; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:11:31 +0700 (NOVST) (envelope-from danfe@regency.nsu.ru) Received: (from danfe@localhost) by regency.nsu.ru (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h538BT5s043599; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:11:29 +0700 (NOVST) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:11:29 +0700 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: arch@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030603081129.GC42929@regency.nsu.ru> References: <20030602171942.GA87863@roark.gnf.org> <16091.44150.539095.704531@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16091.44150.539095.704531@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Envelope-To: arch@freebsd.org, gordont@gnf.org X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=0.11.1.4 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-134.0 required=5.0 tests=BOGOFILTER_TEST_PASS,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_MUTT,USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 08:11:59 -0000 On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 03:58:46PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Gordon Tetlow writes: > > > > There will be a performance hit associated with this. I did a quick > > measurement at boot and my boot time (from invocation of /etc/rc to > > the login prompt) went from 12 seconds with a static root to 15 > > seconds with a dynamic root. I have yet to perform a worldstone on > > it. > > Wow! That's a 25% pessimization. I'm afraid that other heavily > scripted and or fork intensive environments may fair just as poorly > (dynamic web content, SMTP servers, etc) as the startup scripts. > > 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 Can you show any evidence of how slow is RELENG_5 (and _4) compared to those "other free OS"? Some folks make such statements occasionally, but I haven't heard of any decent benchmarks from them. That would be interesting to know though. Thank you. ./danfe