From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Nov 24 19:06:19 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 BF8E016A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5A243FF7
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:06:18 -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 hAP36H5g007911
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO)
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:06:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from gallatin@localhost)
	by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.1) id hAP36CW19641;
	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:06:12 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu)
From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16322.50980.825349.898362@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:06:12 -0500 (EST)
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <20031124.191931.67791612.imp@bsdimp.com>
References: <16322.46449.554372.358751@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
	<20031124.190904.127666948.imp@bsdimp.com>
	<16322.47726.903593.393976@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
	<20031124.191931.67791612.imp@bsdimp.com>
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
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 03:06:19 -0000


M. Warner Losh writes:
 > In message: <16322.47726.903593.393976@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
 > I'm just saying that most of the developers I'm talking to on IRC say
 > this tread is insane, has no content and they are blowing it off
 > because of that.  A concrete, real benchmark will go a long way
 > towards changing that.  Until then, you are as good as kill filed.

How about Gordon's initial bootstone, which increased by 25%?
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16091.44150.539095.704531

And I just did a "make clean" run in /usr/ports/archivers (by manually
mv'ing a static and dynamic sh to /bin in turn):

static:       96.63 real        53.45 user        39.27 sys
dynamic:     112.42 real        55.51 user        51.62 sys

The wall clock is bad (16% worse) and the system time is worse (31%).


So.. 

1) Microbenchmark:	40% worse
2) Bootstone(*):	25% worse
3) Ports:		16% worse


Drew