From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 24 21:19:32 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 9E27B16A4CE for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:19:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0577D43F93 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:19:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from 66.127.85.92 ([66.127.85.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAP5JPHQ065076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:19:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) From: Sam Leffler Organization: Errno Consulting To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andrew Gallatin Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:25:13 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 References: <16322.46449.554372.358751@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20031124.191931.67791612.imp@bsdimp.com> <16322.50980.825349.898362@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <16322.50980.825349.898362@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311242125.13786.sam@errno.com> Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list 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 05:19:32 -0000 On Monday 24 November 2003 07:06 pm, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > 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 I don't believe it was ever demonstrated there was no significant performance loss. I think the switch should not be made until this is resolved. netbsd went through this recently and made an effort to bring performance of a dynamic root in line with a static root before making the change. Sam