From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 2 14:07:38 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 9A76837B401 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB0A43F75 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:07:37 -0700 (PDT) (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 (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h52L7bMD000500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:07:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.1) id h52L7WN45895; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:07:32 -0400 (EDT) (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: <16091.48276.54493.198345@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:07:32 -0400 (EDT) To: Gordon Tetlow In-Reply-To: <20030602201337.GD87863@roark.gnf.org> References: <20030602171942.GA87863@roark.gnf.org> <16091.44150.539095.704531@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20030602201337.GD87863@roark.gnf.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid 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: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:07:38 -0000 Gordon Tetlow writes: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 03:58:46PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > Gordon Tetlow writes: > > > > > > There will be a performance hit associated with this. I did a quick > > > measurement at boot and my boot time (from invocation of /etc/rc to > > > the login prompt) went from 12 seconds with a static root to 15 > > > seconds with a dynamic root. I have yet to perform a worldstone on > > > it. > > > > Wow! That's a 25% pessimization. I'm afraid that other heavily > > scripted and or fork intensive environments may fair just as poorly > > (dynamic web content, SMTP servers, etc) as the startup scripts. > > You need to realize that with the advent of rcNG that their are alot > of additional shell invocations. Also bear in mind that your dynamic In the boot scripts. I agree that the time to boot is not a concern. My main concern is other scripting intensive areas of the system which you may not have measured. > web content and SMTP servers are already going to be dynamically linked. Sure, but if they're using shell scripting at all, then the applications they invoke may not be. /bin/sh and /bin/ls, for example. > In fact, the thing that will be hardest hit will be the boot scripts. If that's true, then that's fine. However, if you propose making such a big change, then I think the burden is on you to prove that it will not impact other areas of the system. I look forward to seeing the worldstones, preferrably from a -j4 or higher build. If there's not a measurable slowdown there, then I'll shutup. Thanks, Drew