Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:53:33 +0100 From: "boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net> To: <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <01c801c3b342$7bd25060$b9844051@insultant.net> References: <200311242125.13786.sam@errno.com><20031124.231607.128865107.imp@bsdimp.com><20031125080155.GC76478@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org><20031125.011734.118629079.imp@bsdimp.com> <20031125084740.GE76478@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> That's a more interesting result and more comparable to Drew's test. > It doesn't necessarily invalidate Drew's results - /bin/sh has 3 > shared libraries and is locale-aware whereas /usr/bin/test has 1 > shared library and doesn't rely on the locale. /usr/bin/true is also > significantly smaller (implying less relocation requirements). > /bin/sh could reasonably be expected to take longer to startup then > /usr/bin/test. another can of worms. various shells have test, true and false built in. so, you have to be very careful in writing a shell comparision benchmark. to complicate matters, ksh (statically linked) has _always_ been faster than sh.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01c801c3b342$7bd25060$b9844051>