From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 17 14:12:18 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7462037B401 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CD743FA3 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:12:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h3HLC58O079921; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:12:05 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:12:05 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Scott Long Message-ID: <20030417211205.GC28037@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20030417141133.GA4155@madman.celabo.org> <20030417144449.GA4530@madman.celabo.org> <200304171535.h3HFZEFs094589@strings.polstra.com> <20030418014500.B94094@iclub.nsu.ru> <200304171944.h3HJi1jK095151@strings.polstra.com> <3E9F0A28.8030906@btc.adaptec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E9F0A28.8030906@btc.adaptec.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: current@freebsd.org cc: John Polstra Subject: Re: HEADS UP: new NSS X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:12:18 -0000 In the last episode (Apr 17), Scott Long said: > John Polstra wrote: > >In article <20030418014500.B94094@iclub.nsu.ru>, Max Khon wrote: > > > we need either allow dlopen(3) to be used in statically linked > > > programs or move to dynamically linked /. Or use an nscd like Solaris? > > Moving to a fully dynamically linked system sounds easier to me. > > But in the past there has been strong opposition to the idea every > > time it has been proposed. > > Right, because everyone is deathly afraid of /usr/lib not being > available and nothing working, or ld.so getting corrupt and nothing > working, or beagles falling from the sky and nothing working. FreeBSD > is one of the few Unix-like OS's left that isn't fully dynamically > linked. > > If switching to a fully dynamically linked system is desired before > 6.0 then it needs to happen before 5.2. I'm not opposed to this. I'm more worried about the performance hit than foot-shooting (schg is protection enough I think, and I like beagles). I believe dynamically-linked programs still are ~20% slower than static ones, and for small programs like sed, awk, expr, sh, basename, tr, and the like, the larger (constant) startup time becomes significant also. Anyone want to benchmark a medium-sized portbuild with static vs dynamic /bin and /sbin? -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com