From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 25 08:52:55 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 5F59716A4CE; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:52:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp4.server.rpi.edu (smtp4.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6D243F75; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:52:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp4.server.rpi.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAPGqqtp029303; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:52:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031125151939.GB48007@madman.celabo.org> 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> <16322.50980.825349.898362@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20031125151939.GB48007@madman.celabo.org> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:52:50 -0500 To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) 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 16:52:55 -0000 At 9:19 AM -0600 11/25/03, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: >On Mon, Nov 24, 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > >So can we just have a statically linked /bin/sh and get on >with life? I still think we would be better off using 5.2-release for collecting more experience with the *operational* issues of having a dynamic /bin/sh. We all know and knew that there would be a performance hit. We also all know that a static /bin/sh will work fine in disaster situations. >That seems to have the most impact. We can also expend >our efforts to improve dynamic linking performance, since >that will improve the performance of the other 99.9% of >the universe. This is certainly my hope. There are more ways to solve the performance problem than just statically-linking /bin/sh. If we do not alleviate the performance issues via other means, then we can certainly statically-link /bin/sh for 5.3-release. We have run with a statically-linked /bin/sh for years, so there is nothing much to *learn* by running with it for the next two months. Yes, there is a performance benefit, but nothing to *learn*. But my fear is that if we *do* address the performance issues, then we'll still shy off a dynamically-linked /bin/sh simply because some folks will say "we don't know that we can trust it", etc. I have no objection if we want to statically-link some things like /bin/sh for 5.3-release, but I don't think we need to do it for 5.2-release -- aka "a snapshot of freebsd-current". -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu