At 3:15 PM -0500 11/24/03, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Here is a simple test which times the execution of a null
shell script.  It basically times fork/exec of the chosen

So.. forking a dynamic sh is roughly 40% more expensive
than forking a static copy of sh.  This is embarrassing.

To be more precise: shell scripts which do-nothing will be 40% more expensive than they used to be. It is not like the entire operating system will get 40% slower.

I propose that we at least make /bin/sh static.

I suggest that we leave all of /bin and /sbin as it is for 5.2-release. We are still telling users that 5.2 is a snapshot of "-current", and it is more valuable to have a wider range of experience with this worst-case scenario. ("worst-case" == all files dynamically linked).

We certainly may want to make changes to address the
performance issues that you note, but there is no reason
we must decide *which* change should be made right now.

Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer           or  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to