Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:06:12 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <16322.50980.825349.898362@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <20031124.191931.67791612.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <16322.46449.554372.358751@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20031124.190904.127666948.imp@bsdimp.com> <16322.47726.903593.393976@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20031124.191931.67791612.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh writes: > In message: <16322.47726.903593.393976@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> > I'm just saying that most of the developers I'm talking to on IRC say > this tread is insane, has no content and they are blowing it off > because of that. A concrete, real benchmark will go a long way > towards changing that. Until then, you are as good as kill filed. 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.. 1) Microbenchmark: 40% worse 2) Bootstone(*): 25% worse 3) Ports: 16% worse Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16322.50980.825349.898362>