In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : In the last episode (Nov 25), Daniel O'Connor said: : > On Tuesday 25 November 2003 06:45, Andrew Gallatin wrote: : > > So.. forking a dynamic sh is roughly 40% more expensive than : > > forking a static copy of sh. This is embarrassing. : > > : > > I propose that we at least make /bin/sh static. (and not add a : > > /sbin/sh; if we must have a dynamic sh, import pdksh, or put a : > > dynamically linked sh in /usr/bin/sh). : > > : > > I'd greatly prefer that the the dynamic root default be backed out : > > until a substantial amount of this performance can be recovered. : > : > What _REAL WORLD_ task does this slow down? : : Try timing "cd /usr/ports/www/mozilla-devel ; make clean" with static : and dynamic /bin. bsd.port.mk spawns many many many /bin/sh processes.
Maybe you could try it with both and tell us the actual difference in wall time? Warner _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"