40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
Garance A Drosihn
drosih at rpi.edu
Tue Nov 25 08:52:55 PST 2003
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 at gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad at freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih at rpi.edu
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list