On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:06:12PM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > How about Gordon's initial bootstone, which increased by 25%? > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16091.44150.539095.704531 > > And I just did a "make clean" run in /usr/ports/archivers (by manually > mv'ing a static and dynamic sh to /bin in turn): > > static: 96.63 real 53.45 user 39.27 sys > dynamic: 112.42 real 55.51 user 51.62 sys > > The wall clock is bad (16% worse) and the system time is worse (31%). > > > So.. > > 1) Microbenchmark: 40% worse > 2) Bootstone(*): 25% worse > 3) Ports: 16% worse
So can we just have a statically linked /bin/sh and get on with life? That seems to have the most impact. We can also expend our efforts to improve dynamic linking performance, since that will improve the performance of the other 99.9% of the universe. Users who REALLY REALLY need /bin/sh to support 3rd-party NSS modules in the mean time can build /bin/sh dynamically. Or we can have /usr/bin/sh as someone else suggested (most of the FreeBSD world's shell scripts--- which are what we *really* seem to be talking about--- already have #! /bin/sh). I prefer to keep as much of the world dynamic, both for dlopen support and for easier system patching. But I can also understand the desire to avoid a penalty for all those short but oft-run scripts. In any case, I'd really like to see a goal for 5.3-RELEASE that includes bringing dynamically-linked /bin/sh performance (*much*) closer to statically-linked /bin/sh performance. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"