From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 3 06:39:42 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 D223837B401 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC8D43FB1 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:39:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h53DcaOn080387; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:38:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)h53DcaT8080384; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:38:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:38:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Alexey Dokuchaev In-Reply-To: <20030603081129.GC42929@regency.nsu.ru> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: arch@freebsd.org 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 13:39:43 -0000 On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > 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. One of the reasons we don't yet have a RELENG_5 is the performance issue: you'll notice we're cutting the 5.x releases off of the HEAD while stability and maturity are still in the works. If you take a look at the 5.2 TODO list, you'll see a number of interesting performance-related activities that are intended to restore the higher interrupt latency to lower levels, lower context switch costs, improve parallelism, etc. In the long term, we're going for both higher levels of parallelism and a more explicit synchronization model in the kernel (which will have its own benefits architecturally). Any help you or others can give us on the way to those goals would be much appreciated :-). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories