Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

dyson at iquest.net dyson at iquest.net
Tue Nov 18 17:31:23 PST 2003

Garance A Drosihn said:
> At 8:07 AM -0500 11/18/03, dyson at iquest.net wrote:
> >
> >	It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a
> >	discussion especially when a decision might be incorrect.
> All I wanted to cut off was the claim that this decision had
> not been discussed publicly before.  It was also annoying that
> most the recent complaints (before your message) were issues
> that had been explicitly discussed and addressed before the
> decision had been reached.  Many people seem to be complaining
> on what they think we did, as opposed to what we actually did.
Okay...  I do understand.

> >	If there hadn't been a noticed increase in cost by using
> >	all-shared-libs, then the measurements were done
> >	incorrectly.  If the decision is made based upon allowing
> >	for 1.5X (at least) times increase in fork/exec times, and
> >	larger memory usage (due to sparse allocations), ...
> I do remember some comments about benchmarks, and it was
> true that the all-dynamic bin/sbin does come out slower.
Please remember: that several people worked VERY VERY hard
to make FreeBSD performant.  It would be very difficult to
recover the performance after many cascaded performance losses.

Throwing away performance is almost an irrevocable decision, and
features (once added) are difficult to remove or substantially
rearchitect (for performance.)  (Once a slow, but workable
functionality is added, the cost to recover lost performance
after the fact is very very high.)


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list