Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root Message-ID: <200306022125.h52LPhhc002291@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20030602171942.GA87863@roark.gnf.org> <xzp4r3844eb.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <xzpznl02nry.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:
:Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> writes:
:> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 10:21:16PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
:> > Was /bin/sh dynamically linked? It shouldn't be.
:> Why shouldn't it be dynamically linked? I'd like to be able to use
:> ~username expansion via nss_ldap.
:
:Because forking a dynamically linked binary is slower, and /bin/sh
:forks a lot.
:
:DES
:--
:Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org
I think you meant 'EXECing' a dynamically linked binary is slower.
fork() should not be appreciably slower. An exec will take a lot
of copy-on-write faults vs static, fork() might take one or two
extra faults due to data being strewn all over the place vs static.
In anycase, this is a convenience vs performance issue. I think a number
of solutions should be investigated before people give up and start
hacking dynamic vs static binaries. For example, a lot of startup delay
is due to disk waiting (since nothing is in the disk cache at system
start!). Running certain daemon startups in the background might yield
a significant overall improvement in startup times.
e.g. instead of running 'sshd' you would run sshd in a subshell, aka
(sshd &), so the RC script can continue on with the next thing without
having to wait for sshd to fault-in from disk. Same goes for sendmail
and many other daemons.
-Matt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200306022125.h52LPhhc002291>