Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > 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 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.
Yes, let's do it and get on with it. /bin/sh is critically important to the performance of many things in the system, but shared / is very useful as well - it's allowed me to move my 4.x systems with small / up to 5-current, and / programs can take advantage of NSS and PAM modules that exist *today*. > ... > 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. Yes -- this is -current: let's get 5.2 out the door and improve on it for 5.3. Guy Helmer _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"