From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 25 01:54:40 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 12E9716A4CE; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:54:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from lupinella.troll.no (lupinella.troll.no [80.232.37.59]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C346D43FA3; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:54:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ebakke@trolltech.com) Received: from steinbit.troll.no ([80.232.37.113]:3008 "EHLO steinbit.troll.no" ident: "NO-IDENT-SERVICE[2]") by trolltech.com with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:54:20 +0100 From: "Erik H. Bakke" To: Don Lewis , doconnor@gsoft.com.au Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:54:31 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <200311250207.hAP27MeF009247@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <200311250207.hAP27MeF009247@gw.catspoiler.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311251054.31574.ebakke@trolltech.com> 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 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 09:54:40 -0000 On Tuesday 25 November 2003 03:07, Don Lewis wrote: > On 25 Nov, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 November 2003 11:52, Dan Nelson wrote: > > > > 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? > >> > >> Try timing "cd /usr/ports/www/mozilla-devel ; make clean" with static > >> and dynamic /bin. bsd.port.mk spawns many many many /bin/sh processes. > > > > OK my bad, it will probably slow down the ports building. > > The ports infrastructure is horribly slow even with a static sh, though > not as glacially slow as installing and patching Solaris 9. > But if the change to dynamic root "provokes" this slowdown that people have been seeing, it would be much better to address the cause and not the symptom. The change to dynamic root here is not the cause, the extra overhead of using dynamically linked tools is, and that should be the main focus point. If the overhead of dynamic linking is reduced, that will benefit all of us, even if we use a dynamic root or not. -- Erik H. Bakke