Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:11:29 +0700 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root Message-ID: <20030603081129.GC42929@regency.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <16091.44150.539095.704531@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> References: <20030602171942.GA87863@roark.gnf.org> <16091.44150.539095.704531@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 03:58:46PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Gordon Tetlow writes: > > > > There will be a performance hit associated with this. I did a quick > > measurement at boot and my boot time (from invocation of /etc/rc to > > the login prompt) went from 12 seconds with a static root to 15 > > seconds with a dynamic root. I have yet to perform a worldstone on > > it. > > Wow! That's a 25% pessimization. I'm afraid that other heavily > scripted and or fork intensive environments may fair just as poorly > (dynamic web content, SMTP servers, etc) as the startup scripts. > > I don't want to sound harsh, and I do appreciate your work. However, > I think the last thing FreeBSD needs now is to get slower. We're > already far slower than that other free OS. Shouldn't we consider Can you show any evidence of how slow is RELENG_5 (and _4) compared to those "other free OS"? Some folks make such statements occasionally, but I haven't heard of any decent benchmarks from them. That would be interesting to know though. Thank you. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030603081129.GC42929>