From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 24 18:48:51 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 15C1716A4CE for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from cain.gsoft.com.au (cain.gsoft.com.au [203.31.81.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0038643FBD for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:48:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cain.gsoft.com.au (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAP2mahk055141; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:18:39 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) From: "Daniel O'Connor" To: frank@exit.com Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:18:35 +1030 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <200311250214.hAP2EctT019845@realtime.exit.com> In-Reply-To: <200311250214.hAP2EctT019845@realtime.exit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311251318.35896.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> X-Spam-Score: -4.7 () CARRIAGE_RETURNS,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_KMAIL X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.16 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) cc: Andrew Gallatin cc: Steve Kargl cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list 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 02:48:51 -0000 On Tuesday 25 November 2003 12:44, Frank Mayhar wrote: > _This_ is the issue. You assert that this change "benefits a fair number > of users." I and others assert that it hurts performance and makes > disaster recovery more complex (while the existence of /rescue is a great > idea, it still adds complexity). There's proof for our assertions, but all > I'm hearing from you guys is handwaving. I don't think any one has said dynamic / is faster. > And I'm _not_ trying to be insulting or condescending. I've done > handwaving myself in the past, but I try to be aware of it and only do it > when I can justify it. In this case, the handwaving is in place of real > evidence. So, how much does it help? How _many_ users will it benefit, in > general? Sure, it doesn't matter for a webserver that runs httpd or for a > database server that does nothing but run Postgresql, but those cases are > irrelevant to the issue of a dynamically-linked root. They are affected > neither way. It is people who run a variety of applications that will be > affected, either good or bad. > So, we've seen data about the performance hit. What about data about > improved performance or improved function in some other way? What is > the compelling reason to move to a dynamic root? > > So far I've seen no argument that was even convincing, let alone > compelling. Re-read -current, and the commit messages around this whole thing. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5