Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:52:50 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <p06002009bbe93219182b@[128.113.24.47]> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06002009bbe93219182b>