From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 24 18:14:52 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 B43FB16A4CE for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:14:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from tinker.exit.com (tinker.exit.com [206.223.0.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6546043FAF for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:14:48 -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 hAP2EceC026918; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:14:39 -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 hAP2EcMC019846; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:14:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from frank@realtime.exit.com) Received: (from frank@localhost) by realtime.exit.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hAP2EctT019845; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:14:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from frank) From: Frank Mayhar Message-Id: <200311250214.hAP2EctT019845@realtime.exit.com> In-Reply-To: <200311251233.03642.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: "Daniel O'Connor" Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:14:38 -0800 (PST) X-Copyright0: Copyright 2003 Frank Mayhar. All Rights Reserved. X-Copyright1: Permission granted for electronic reproduction as Usenet News or email only. X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99f (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII cc: Andrew Gallatin cc: Steve Kargl 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 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 02:14:52 -0000 Daniel O'Connor wrote: > You DO know FreeBSD is a cooperative project right? Of course I do. I was using it when it was just 386BSD 0.1 and a patchkit. I've watched it through a lot of changes and while I've never been a part of the team, mostly due to lack of time, I try to throw whatever I can at it when I'm able. On the _other_ hand: > I hardly think you're in a position to complain about a (probably very minor) > performance loss which has a trivial work around, which also benefits a fair > number of users. _This_ is the issue. You assert that this change "benefits a fair number of users." I and others assert that it hurts performance and makes disaster recovery more complex (while the existence of /rescue is a great idea, it still adds complexity). There's proof for our assertions, but all I'm hearing from you guys is handwaving. And I'm _not_ trying to be insulting or condescending. I've done handwaving myself in the past, but I try to be aware of it and only do it when I can justify it. In this case, the handwaving is in place of real evidence. So, how much does it help? How _many_ users will it benefit, in general? Sure, it doesn't matter for a webserver that runs httpd or for a database server that does nothing but run Postgresql, but those cases are irrelevant to the issue of a dynamically-linked root. They are affected neither way. It is people who run a variety of applications that will be affected, either good or bad. So, we've seen data about the performance hit. What about data about improved performance or improved function in some other way? What is the compelling reason to move to a dynamic root? So far I've seen no argument that was even convincing, let alone compelling. -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/