Daniel O'Connor wrote: > What _REAL WORLD_ task does this slow down? I think the point was that, in this particular "worst" case, it's a forty percent performance hit. What's the average case? What's the case for a "real world" pipeline with a lot of tiny little static binaries?
I dislike this decision enough that I'm actually considering going away from FreeBSD, something I really had never for a moment thought possible. It's even worse that you deride someone who tried to shed a little light on the discussion. The performance hit is real. Even if it's not forty percent it's worth consideration, no matter how much you may want to shout down those who disagree. > My production systems don't spin in infinite loops spawning shell processes > which die straight away. Uh, _huh_. Well, can you _imagine_ a scenario in which a "production system" might actually do something along those lines? _I_ can. Think a system of shell scripts. > If yours do, well.. curious, but I hardly think it is of relevance to most > users of FreeBSD. I can guarantee you that you have no idea _at all_ what is "of relevance to most users of FreeBSD." It is nearly axiomatic that developers cannot imagine the uses to which their users put their systems. > If it is for you then just build your world with static root. Kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? Feh. This is utterly ridiculous. Yeah, I understand why you guys made the decision. It's the same set of reasons a lot of other people in the past have made the same or similar decisions. We'll see if you get burned by it, as many of those other people were. -- Frank Mayhar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"