From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun  2 14:25:45 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 3A20637B401
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon,  2 Jun 2003 14:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F9943FA3
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon,  2 Jun 2003 14:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h52LPiVI002292;
	Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id h52LPhhc002291;
	Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <200306022125.h52LPhhc002291@apollo.backplane.com>
To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
References: <20030602171942.GA87863@roark.gnf.org>
	<xzp4r3844eb.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
	<xzpznl02nry.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
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
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:25:45 -0000


:
: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