Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:40:47 -0600 From: "Guy Helmer" <ghelmer@palisadesys.com> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org>, "Andrew Gallatin" <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: RE: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <FPEBKMIFGFHCGLLKBLMMGEDGCDAA.ghelmer@palisadesys.com> In-Reply-To: <20031125151939.GB48007@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:06:12PM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > How about Gordon's initial bootstone, which increased by 25%? > > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16091.44150.539095.704531 > > > > And I just did a "make clean" run in /usr/ports/archivers (by manually > > mv'ing a static and dynamic sh to /bin in turn): > > > > static: 96.63 real 53.45 user 39.27 sys > > dynamic: 112.42 real 55.51 user 51.62 sys > > > > The wall clock is bad (16% worse) and the system time is worse (31%). > So can we just have a statically linked /bin/sh and get on with life? > That seems to have the most impact. We can also expend our efforts > to improve dynamic linking performance, since that will improve the > performance of the other 99.9% of the universe. Yes, let's do it and get on with it. /bin/sh is critically important to the performance of many things in the system, but shared / is very useful as well - it's allowed me to move my 4.x systems with small / up to 5-current, and / programs can take advantage of NSS and PAM modules that exist *today*. > ... > In any case, I'd really like to see a goal for 5.3-RELEASE that > includes bringing dynamically-linked /bin/sh performance (*much*) > closer to statically-linked /bin/sh performance. Yes -- this is -current: let's get 5.2 out the door and improve on it for 5.3. Guy Helmer
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FPEBKMIFGFHCGLLKBLMMGEDGCDAA.ghelmer>