40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

[Daniel O'Connor]

On Tuesday 25 November 2003 12:44, Frank Mayhar wrote:
> _This_ is the issue.  You assert that this change "benefits a fair number
> of users."  I and others assert that it hurts performance and makes
> disaster recovery more complex (while the existence of /rescue is a great
> idea, it still adds complexity).  There's proof for our assertions, but all
> I'm hearing from you guys is handwaving.

I don't think any one has said dynamic / is faster.

> And I'm _not_ trying to be insulting or condescending.  I've done
> handwaving myself in the past, but I try to be aware of it and only do it
> when I can justify it.  In this case, the handwaving is in place of real
> evidence. So, how much does it help?  How _many_ users will it benefit, in
> general? Sure, it doesn't matter for a webserver that runs httpd or for a
> database server that does nothing but run Postgresql, but those cases are
> irrelevant to the issue of a dynamically-linked root.  They are affected
> neither way. It is people who run a variety of applications that will be
> affected, either good or bad.
> So, we've seen data about the performance hit.  What about data about
> improved performance or improved function in some other way?  What is
> the compelling reason to move to a dynamic root?
>
> So far I've seen no argument that was even convincing, let alone
> compelling.

Re-read -current, and the commit messages around this whole thing.

-- 
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
  -- Andrew Tanenbaum
GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140  AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5