Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:25:13 -0800 From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <200311242125.13786.sam@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <16322.50980.825349.898362@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> References: <16322.46449.554372.358751@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20031124.191931.67791612.imp@bsdimp.com> <16322.50980.825349.898362@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 24 November 2003 07:06 pm, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > M. Warner Losh writes: > > In message: <16322.47726.903593.393976@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> > > I'm just saying that most of the developers I'm talking to on IRC say > > this tread is insane, has no content and they are blowing it off > > because of that. A concrete, real benchmark will go a long way > > towards changing that. Until then, you are as good as kill filed. > > How about Gordon's initial bootstone, which increased by 25%? > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16091.44150.539095.704531 > > And I just did a "make clean" run in /usr/ports/archivers (by manually > mv'ing a static and dynamic sh to /bin in turn): > > static: 96.63 real 53.45 user 39.27 sys > dynamic: 112.42 real 55.51 user 51.62 sys > > The wall clock is bad (16% worse) and the system time is worse (31%). > > > So.. > > 1) Microbenchmark: 40% worse > 2) Bootstone(*): 25% worse > 3) Ports: 16% worse I don't believe it was ever demonstrated there was no significant performance loss. I think the switch should not be made until this is resolved. netbsd went through this recently and made an effort to bring performance of a dynamic root in line with a static root before making the change. Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200311242125.13786.sam>