From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 24 17:55:38 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 2F5D016A4CE for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:55:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25ECE43FE3 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:55:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP1ta5g002511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.1) id hAP1tVL19552; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:55:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16322.46739.544236.261395@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:55:31 -0500 (EST) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200311251212.59933.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> References: <200311250106.hAP16qNp018512@realtime.exit.com> <200311251212.59933.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:55:38 -0000 Daniel O'Connor writes: > > It is _trivial_ to buildworld with a static root. Then its equally trivial to build with a dynamic root. Please do so, and don't wreck the performance of the OS I've used since 1994. > Why didn't you pipe up when this was discussed _long_ ago? In the orginal thread, there was an agreement that the performance would be measured BEFORE the default was changed, and the default would only be changed if there was no measurable performance impact. I believe sam@ asked for this. As far as I know, performance measurments were never done. Instead, the switch was thrown just before the code freeze. > > If you are deploying FreeBSD on servers you should build your own release > anyway (which is hardly an onerous task). > Its pretty hard to use the binary update tools that way. Drew