From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 24 17:07:07 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 4A35E16A4CE for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from tinker.exit.com (tinker.exit.com [206.223.0.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781CB43FE0 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:07:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from frank@exit.com) Received: from realtime.exit.com (realtime [206.223.0.5]) by tinker.exit.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAP16reC026261; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:06:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from frank@exit.com) Received: from realtime.exit.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by realtime.exit.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAP16qMC018513; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:06:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from frank@realtime.exit.com) Received: (from frank@localhost) by realtime.exit.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hAP16qNp018512; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:06:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from frank) From: Frank Mayhar Message-Id: <200311250106.hAP16qNp018512@realtime.exit.com> In-Reply-To: <200311251049.18227.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: "Daniel O'Connor" Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:06:52 -0800 (PST) X-Copyright0: Copyright 2003 Frank Mayhar. All Rights Reserved. X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99f (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Andrew Gallatin Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: frank@exit.com 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 01:07:07 -0000 Daniel O'Connor wrote: > What _REAL WORLD_ task does this slow down? I think the point was that, in this particular "worst" case, it's a forty percent performance hit. What's the average case? What's the case for a "real world" pipeline with a lot of tiny little static binaries? I dislike this decision enough that I'm actually considering going away from FreeBSD, something I really had never for a moment thought possible. It's even worse that you deride someone who tried to shed a little light on the discussion. The performance hit is real. Even if it's not forty percent it's worth consideration, no matter how much you may want to shout down those who disagree. > My production systems don't spin in infinite loops spawning shell processes > which die straight away. Uh, _huh_. Well, can you _imagine_ a scenario in which a "production system" might actually do something along those lines? _I_ can. Think a system of shell scripts. > If yours do, well.. curious, but I hardly think it is of relevance to most > users of FreeBSD. I can guarantee you that you have no idea _at all_ what is "of relevance to most users of FreeBSD." It is nearly axiomatic that developers cannot imagine the uses to which their users put their systems. > If it is for you then just build your world with static root. Kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? Feh. This is utterly ridiculous. Yeah, I understand why you guys made the decision. It's the same set of reasons a lot of other people in the past have made the same or similar decisions. We'll see if you get burned by it, as many of those other people were. -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/