In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Michael Edenfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : time make -j 4 buildworld
Hmmm, more jobs. : They were on a single CPU Athlon 500 with 320MB of RAM. 320MB is not enough RAM not to swap. I did some preliminary testing last night (which I lost due to a crash) that showed that a simple 'make buildworld' slowed down 1-2% depending on how many times I ran them. However, make -s buildworld (with or without -j 4 on my dual athlon) was faster than a normal buildworld, but the dynamic /bin/sh was more like 5-7% slower. The difference here is that there are fewer context switches (and I guess less chance for parallelization). In all make buildworld, the number of page faults was 10x for the dynamic case than for the static case. However, having said that, I think everybody realizes the following: 1) Dynamic linking is slower. 2) Speed improvements in this area are possible, as demonstrated by other projects. 3) PIC code is slower than non-PIC code, in general, and also gcc runs about 5-10% slower depending on if you are running out of a shared library or a static one. shared libraries must use PIC code (at this time). 4) People like to complain. Warner P.S. One interesting note: /bin/sh when linked statically with libedit and libncurses but dynamically with libc runs about 10% slower for my /usr/bin/true/true tests than when all three are dynamically linked. So it seems that not all dynamic linking is bad for performance. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"