From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 25 07:41:11 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 75E8416A4CE; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:41:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from magellan.palisadesys.com (magellan.palisadesys.com [192.188.162.211]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA3543FE3; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:41:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ghelmer@palisadesys.com) Received: from mira (mira.palisadesys.com [192.188.162.116]) (authenticated bits=0)hAPFekvP034244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:40:47 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ghelmer@palisadesys.com) From: "Guy Helmer" To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , "Andrew Gallatin" Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:40:47 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20031125151939.GB48007@madman.celabo.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on magellan.palisadesys.com cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: RE: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh 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: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:41:11 -0000 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