Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 20:35:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: new NSS Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030417202921.23691M-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20030417211205.GC28037@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Dan Nelson wrote: > > 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? Well, I think that the measurements should be done, but it's worth noting that several of the programs you quote above have been dynamically linked for years: sed dynamic awk dynamic expr static sh static basename dynamic tr dynamic Some might argue that even to support NSS, expr wouldn't need to become dynamic. One of the noted benefits of running with a dynamic system is that you can actually save a fair amount of memory by not requiring separate physical memory storage for each instance of libc. There are a number of trade-offs, and we're certainly not the first to approach this decision :-). I'd be very interested in seeing some micro-benchmark and macro-benchmark performance results, however. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030417202921.23691M-100000>