Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:19:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Kenneth Culver <culverk@yumyumyum.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root Message-ID: <16091.48994.166392.824851@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030602162027.E11044-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org> References: <16091.44150.539095.704531@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20030602162027.E11044-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Kenneth Culver writes: > > 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 > > making the dynamic root optional and leaving a static root as > > standard? > > Since when are we "far slower" than the other free operating system? > According to all my benchmarks and personal use, the two are about the > same, with FreeBSD "feeling" slightly faster. That said, I think making > the / binaries dynamically linked optional is a good idea. Since SMPng. Try running webstone (available in ports) on a server with multiple 10/100 links, or a gig link. By any metric you choose, 5.x is slower than 4.x, and much slower than linux. Note this is not intended to be a criticism of SMPng. Once the locking in 5.x is completed, I think things will look a _LOT_ better. But as it is now, we're paying most of the price and not reaping many benefits because too much of the system is still under Giant. Drewhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16091.48994.166392.824851>