Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:34:51 -0500 From: Michael Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <20031126143451.GJ15294@wombat.localnet> In-Reply-To: <20031125.224319.118629587.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <00a701c3b33c$f798c5e0$b9844051@insultant.net> <20031125.100653.28845083.imp@bsdimp.com> <20031126052626.GI15294@wombat.localnet> <20031125.224319.118629587.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Re2uCLPLNzqOLVJA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> [031126 00:43]: > In message: <20031126052626.GI15294@wombat.localnet> > Michael Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> writes: > : * M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> [031125 12:07]: > : > In message: <00a701c3b33c$f798c5e0$b9844051@insultant.net> > : > "boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net> writes: > : > : i see that there some doubt about whether running lots of > : > : shell scripts ever happens. what happens when you > : > : use make? lots of shells get run and they run small > : > : (one line?) scripts. > : >=20 > : > make buildworld slows down < 1% when you switch from static /bin/sh to > : > dynamic. > :=20 > : I'm all for dynamic / and dynamic /bin/sh, but this doesn't even come > : close to what I observed on my systems. I see anywhere from 15% to 20% > : slowdown in buildworld, depending on how bad my hardware already is. I > : posted my most recent numbers earlier. >=20 > My dual athlon make -j 4 buildworld differed by about 16-20 seconds on > a 36 minute buildworld. >=20 > : It's difficult to get lots of these numbers, unfortunately, because it > : takes a good 6-8 hours just to complete one build. But the numbers are > : fairly consistant across the different degrees of old crappy hardware I > : have. >=20 > So you are seeing a about an hour slowdown (16% slowdown on 6 hours is > 1 hour) from before/after? Or are you seeing an hour slowdown from > 4.x -> 5.2-beta? I have two 5.x systems, both with dynamic / that were built within the past month. One's a bit older, probably a month or so, as I was waiting for the statfs changes to settle before upgrading it. The other was built about 3 days ago. The first one is pretty old, I only use it for a firewall because no one will let me spring for a replacement: CPU: Pentium II/Pentium II Xeon/Celeron (399.10-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin =3D "GenuineIntel" Id =3D 0x665 Stepping =3D 5 Features=3D0x183f9ff<FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,= CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR> real memory =3D 66977792 (63 MB) avail memory =3D 60477440 (57 MB) ad0: 19470MB <QUANTUM FIREBALLlct20 20> [39560/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA33 This machine usually takes 10-12 hours to do a full buildworld with -j 3 (which somehow seems to be the fastest). With static /bin/sh it was took just about an hour and a half less, but again, I could only do one pair since that took the whole day :) The other is slightly better and is my personal FreeBSD workstation, which I run -CURRENT on for test purposes and cuz I like it better :) CPU: AMD-K7(tm) Processor (499.04-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin =3D "AuthenticAMD" Id =3D 0x612 Stepping =3D 2 Features=3D0x81f9ff<FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,C= MOV,PAT,MMX> AMD Features=3D0xc0400000<AMIE,DSP,3DNow!> real memory =3D 335478784 (319 MB) avail memory =3D 316243968 (301 MB) ad0: 16603MB <Maxtor 91731U4> [33735/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA66 This one completes a buildworld in about 7-8 hours, the static /bin/sh run took about an hour less. I posted those numbers here earlier. I don't have any decent hardware running 5.x, all the new machines in real user are still using 4.8, so these are the only numbers I can come up with. Again, I *like* the ability to have NSS in /bin/sh, and the idea of dynamic linking in general appeals to me. The hour to hour-and-a-half slowdown might seem huge, but `make buildworld` really is the worst case scenario I could come up with, and 15% slowdown in the *worst* real-world case is certainly much better than 40%. --Mike --Re2uCLPLNzqOLVJA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/xLoLCczNhKRsh48RAjHZAJ9iOwgHi3S2oDkxkI/4jnf/Cq1w/ACgtfta J/mrGtw7jJMx+Vv7fJv1Yr8= =Cfkw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Re2uCLPLNzqOLVJA--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031126143451.GJ15294>