From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Nov 24 15:26:02 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 3F2D916A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.noos.fr (nan-smtp-16.noos.net [212.198.2.124])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFC443F3F
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:26:00 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from boyd@insultant.net)
Received: (qmail 2404 invoked by uid 0); 24 Nov 2003 23:25:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO coma) ([81.64.132.185])
          (envelope-sender <boyd@insultant.net>)
          by 212.198.2.124 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; 24 Nov 2003 23:25:59 -0000
Message-ID: <045801c3b2e1$f4844240$b9844051@insultant.net>
From: "boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net>
To: <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
References: <16322.26365.159173.946033@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:23:22 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
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
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:26:02 -0000

> So.. forking a dynamic sh is roughly 40% more expensive than
> forking a static copy of sh.  This is embarrassing.

read the original paper carefully:


http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cache/papers/cs/3066/http:zSzzSzswt-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.dezSz~1friedrizSzsvzSzreferenceszSzShared_Libraries_In_Sun_OS.pdf/gingell87shared.pdf

it's conclusions state that they are slower.  this was the
_original paper_ that announced the damn things.