Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 18:08:17 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: gpalmer@freebsd.org, jehamby@lightside.com Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Congrats on CURRENT 5/1 SNAP... Message-ID: <199605210808.SAA28887@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Okay, but there are already copies of some of these in /stand! Also, if >> nothing else, I would like a shared version of /bin/sh and /bin/csh for >> faster interactive use, with a static /sbin/sh for boot-up scripts only. >> Comments? >A lot of people, myself included, tend to blow /stand away once >installed. There isn't a lot of need for it generally once the machine >is installed. Some people, myself included, have never installed /stand. At least one person, myself included :-), uses dynamically linked binaries for everything except ld.so and cc1. I recently investigated how much the dynamically linked executables in /bin cost for `make' and `make install' in /usr/src. On a P133 it takes about 8ms to exec a small dynamically linked binary and about 2ms to exec a small statically linked binary. /bin/sh isn't execed all that much (because make is smart enough to exec things directly). However, expr and test are execed a lot for the stupid shell scripts for handling MLINKS. It takes about 150 seconds longer than it should to create all the links for libraries alone. About 50 seconds of this is for unnecessary exec overhead and the rest is because too many processes are execed and sync metadata updates are too slow. >I must admit I will not argue if you move csh from /bin. I don't see >much use for it myself. It is root's default shell. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605210808.SAA28887>