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]"