On Tuesday 25 November 2003 12:44, Frank Mayhar wrote: > _This_ is the issue. You assert that this change "benefits a fair number > of users." I and others assert that it hurts performance and makes > disaster recovery more complex (while the existence of /rescue is a great > idea, it still adds complexity). There's proof for our assertions, but all > I'm hearing from you guys is handwaving.
I don't think any one has said dynamic / is faster. > And I'm _not_ trying to be insulting or condescending. I've done > handwaving myself in the past, but I try to be aware of it and only do it > when I can justify it. In this case, the handwaving is in place of real > evidence. So, how much does it help? How _many_ users will it benefit, in > general? Sure, it doesn't matter for a webserver that runs httpd or for a > database server that does nothing but run Postgresql, but those cases are > irrelevant to the issue of a dynamically-linked root. They are affected > neither way. It is people who run a variety of applications that will be > affected, either good or bad. > So, we've seen data about the performance hit. What about data about > improved performance or improved function in some other way? What is > the compelling reason to move to a dynamic root? > > So far I've seen no argument that was even convincing, let alone > compelling. Re-read -current, and the commit messages around this whole thing. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"