Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:49:18 +1030 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <200311251049.18227.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <16322.26365.159173.946033@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> References: <16322.26365.159173.946033@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 06:45, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > So.. forking a dynamic sh is roughly 40% more expensive than > forking a static copy of sh. This is embarrassing. > > I propose that we at least make /bin/sh static. (and not add a > /sbin/sh; if we must have a dynamic sh, import pdksh, or put a > dynamically linked sh in /usr/bin/sh). > > I'd greatly prefer that the the dynamic root default be backed out > until a substantial amount of this performance can be recovered. What _REAL WORLD_ task does this slow down? My production systems don't spin in infinite loops spawning shell processes which die straight away. If yours do, well.. curious, but I hardly think it is of relevance to most users of FreeBSD. If it is for you then just build your world with static root. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200311251049.18227.doconnor>