Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-12-03 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:44:16AM -0600, Bob Willcox wrote: Nothing specific. I suppose it's just a space-time tradeoff from my point of view. With disk sizes what they are today (most of my systems have a system disk size of 40 GB or more), in my environment reducing the root filesystem

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-12-03 Thread Leo Bicknell
In a message written on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:05:40PM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: And if you are using FreeBSD on desktop you should use bash or some other ports-shell, instead of slowing down _the_ shell for shell scripts. But that's IMHO, so I didn't pipe this in until now. But it's

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-12-02 Thread Tim Kientzle
Daniel C. Sobral wrote: Now, my machines usually get by themselves, but all *I* do on them is sh(1) intensive, so I'll probably be using the static root option when it comes time to upgrade them to 5.x. The static root option exists for people with special requirements: * Use a lot of shell

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-12-02 Thread Bob Willcox
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:43:16PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: Daniel C. Sobral wrote: Now, my machines usually get by themselves, but all *I* do on them is sh(1) intensive, so I'll probably be using the static root option when it comes time to upgrade them to 5.x. The static root option

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-12-02 Thread Tim Kientzle
Bob Willcox wrote: What impact, if any, will this have on those of us that use NIS and still want a statically linked root? I have been using NIS for years ... First, let me clarify that I'm advocating moving NIS out of libc in the 6.0 timeframe. Also, I'm not suggesting anyone replace NIS with

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-12-02 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Dec 02), Tim Kientzle said: Does that rule out NIS with a static root? Yes, with the current NSS/PAM implementation, although a variety of suggestions have been floated around that would make NSS/PAM compatible with static binaries. My personal favorite is to implement

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-12-01 Thread Jonathan Mini
I have found that the cost of printing the spew often slows down compiles measurably, especially when spewing to an xterm running on a local XFree86 process. Even with syscons, this is noticeable. I generally tend to run my builds behind the screen port these days, which helps (screen implements

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-12-01 Thread Scott Long
Jonathan Mini wrote: I have found that the cost of printing the spew often slows down compiles measurably, especially when spewing to an xterm running on a local XFree86 process. Even with syscons, this is noticeable. I generally tend to run my builds behind the screen port these days, which

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-12-01 Thread Jonathan Mini
On Dec 1, 2003, at 10:15 PM, Scott Long wrote: Jonathan Mini wrote: I have found that the cost of printing the spew often slows down compiles measurably, especially when spewing to an xterm running on a local XFree86 process. Even with syscons, this is noticeable. I generally tend to run my

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-29 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 6:27 PM +1100 11/27/03, Bruce Evans wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote: I have reformatted the numbers that Michael reported, into the following table: Static /bin/sh: Dynamic /bin/sh: real385m29.977s real455m44.852s = 18.22% user

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-27 Thread Bruce Evans
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote: At 12:23 AM -0500 11/26/03, Michael Edenfield wrote: Just to provide some real-world numbers, here's what I got out of a buildworld: I have reformatted the numbers that Michael reported, into the following table: Static /bin/sh:

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-27 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : What are people doing to make buildworld so slow? using gcc 3 :-) Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-26 Thread Terry Lambert
Brad Knowles wrote: At 2:48 PM -0800 2003/11/25, Matthew Dillon wrote: What I am advocating is that FreeBSD-5 not marginalize and restrict (make less flexible) basic infrastructure in order to get other infrastructure working. If you've got working,

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-26 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 12:23 AM -0500 11/26/03, Michael Edenfield wrote: Just to provide some real-world numbers, here's what I got out of a buildworld: I have reformatted the numbers that Michael reported, into the following table: Static /bin/sh: Dynamic /bin/sh: real385m29.977s real

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-26 Thread andy-freebsd
obrien wrote @ Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:55:05 -0800: On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:07:55PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: What about the newer version of gcc? That is considerably slower than previous versions, but I don't see people screaming to have it removed. Uh... you must not know what you

Re: NSS and PAM, dynamic vs. static (was: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh)

2003-11-26 Thread Jacques A. Vidrine
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 02:00:08AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How much do you intend to use NSS for? I mean, what's the point of adopting this cool infrastructure if all you are going to do with it is make a better PAM out of it?

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-26 Thread Michael Edenfield
* M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031126 00:43]: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Edenfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : * M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031125 12:07]: : In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : boyd, rounin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : : i see that

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-26 Thread Michael Edenfield
* Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031126 06:56]: At 12:23 AM -0500 11/26/03, Michael Edenfield wrote: Just to provide some real-world numbers, here's what I got out of a buildworld: I have reformatted the numbers that Michael reported, into the following table: Static /bin/sh:

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-26 Thread Matthew Dillon
:At 00:23 26/11/2003 -0500, Michael Edenfield wrote: :Static /bin/sh: : real385m29.977s : user111m58.508s : sys 93m14.450s : :Dynamic /bin/sh: : real455m44.852s : user113m17.807s : sys 103m16.509s : : Given that user+sys real in both cases, it looks like

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-26 Thread M. Warner Losh
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

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-26 Thread Matthew Dillon
: 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. : : :What happened to mdodd's prebinding efforts? : :Drew Prebinding was put into DFly but the

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-26 Thread Michael Edenfield
* M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031126 14:51]: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Edenfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : They were on a single CPU Athlon 500 with 320MB of RAM. 320MB is not enough RAM not to swap. However, having said that, I think everybody realizes the

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-26 Thread Robert Watson
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: I don't know what Matt is planning on delivering, but... http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/opendirectory/ [...] lookupd is included with the Darwin project and is documented online in Apple's Support database and as

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-26 Thread E.B. Dreger
MD Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:50:25 -0800 (PST) MD From: Matthew Dillon MD (B) the authentication code access an IPC service which *ONLY* allows MD challenge/response, does *NOT* give you direct access to the MD encrypted contents of the password file, and which limits the challenge MD

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Maxim M. Kazachek
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote: Daniel O'Connor writes: It is _trivial_ to buildworld with a static root. Then its equally trivial to build with a dynamic root. Please do so, and don't wreck the performance of the OS I've used since 1994. Then just use OS from 1994 and

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Miguel Mendez
./Scott Long wrote: Please, read : http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Also, I'm really starting to resent you using the FreeBSD mailing lists as an advocacy channel for DragonFly. I fail to see how FreeBSD 4.x and DFBSD relate to FreeBSD 5-current, which is the overall topic of

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:16:07PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: H, It looks like the hit is less than 10% in the fork intensive test I just wrote: #!/bin/sh for i in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do for j in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do for k in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do for l in 0 1

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:16:07PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: : H, It looks like the hit is less than 10% in the fork intensive : test I just wrote: : : #!/bin/sh : for i in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do : for

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 04:54:41AM +, E.B. Dreger wrote: What specific aspects of rtld are required to support NSS in static binaries? dlopen(), fixups, and dlsym()? All of the above. The underlying problem is how to handle a library call from within the NSS/PAM/whatever shared library.

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:17:34AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: True. However, I get very similar numbers of I change it to /usr/bin/true (12% slower). /bin/sh usually fork+exec things other /bin/sh. That's a more interesting result and more comparable to Drew's test. It doesn't necessarily

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Andre Guibert de Bruet
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote: Process accounting can tell the story: % lastcomm | wc -l 47806 % lastcomm | sed -e 's/ .*.//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head 25281 sendmail 4094 sh 2987 perl 2846 inetd 1704 procmail 1640 httpd 1221 cron 814 date 732 postgres 648

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Matthew Dillon
:... :5.x and propaganda about DFBSD doesn't really mean a whole lot, unless you :are looking for new recruits to your camp. In any case, you've made your :point on a nearly daily basis that 5.x is inferior to what DFBSD will be, :and that you don't have much knowledge or care about 5.x anyways.

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Erik H. Bakke
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 03:07, Don Lewis wrote: On 25 Nov, Daniel O'Connor wrote: On Tuesday 25 November 2003 11:52, Dan Nelson wrote: I'd greatly prefer that the the dynamic root default be backed out until a substantial amount of this performance can be recovered. What

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread boyd, rounin
i see that there some doubt about whether running lots of shell scripts ever happens. what happens when you use make? lots of shells get run and they run small (one line?) scripts. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread boyd, rounin
That's a more interesting result and more comparable to Drew's test. It doesn't necessarily invalidate Drew's results - /bin/sh has 3 shared libraries and is locale-aware whereas /usr/bin/test has 1 shared library and doesn't rely on the locale. /usr/bin/true is also significantly smaller

Operating system advocacy (Was: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh)

2003-11-25 Thread Mark Murray
Matthew Dillon writes: Hmm. Well, I think there's some confusion here. While I certainly like my vision for DFly better then I like the vision for FreeBSD-5, that is simply in the eye of the beholder... of course I am going to like my own vision better. It's my vision,

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Jacques A. Vidrine
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 07:11:29PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: You don't need dynamic loading to get nsswitch type functionality. You only need dynamic loading if nobody is willing to write an IPC model to get the functionality. It's really silly to create such a fundamental

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Jacques A. Vidrine
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

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Jacques A. Vidrine
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 08:22:52PM -0600, David Leimbach wrote: Yep :). I feel like saying set the default to static and make the dynamic bins the option so the people who can't be bothered to compile their own system even though everyone I know does this for tuning purposes anyway can

RE: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Guy Helmer
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

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Jacques A. Vidrine writes: So can we just have a statically linked /bin/sh and get on with life? That certainly seems like the best compromise. Then we can end this thread ;) That seems to have the most impact. We can also expend our efforts to improve dynamic linking performance,

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Cy Schubert
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jacques A. Vidrine wri tes: So can we just have a statically linked /bin/sh and get on with life? I was thinking the same thing myself a few days ago. Cheers, -- Cy Schubert [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.komquats.com/ BC Government .

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 9:19 AM -0600 11/25/03, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote: So can we just have a statically linked /bin/sh and get on with life? I still think we would be better off using 5.2-release for collecting more experience with the *operational* issues of having a

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] boyd, rounin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : i see that there some doubt about whether running lots of : shell scripts ever happens. what happens when you : use make? lots of shells get run and they run small : (one line?) scripts. make buildworld slows

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Daniel O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What _REAL WORLD_ task does this slow down? I suspect 'make world' takes a serious hit. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Matthew Dillon
:IMHO, it makes more sense to write NSS modules that do their own :proxying than to make things even more complicated in libc. Those :that are lightweight don't carry extra baggage; those that do can :implement proxying in the most efficient manner for that particular :backend, e.g. some calls

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Jacques A. Vidrine
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 11:50:25AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: Just not thinking out of the box, maybe. Matt, I'm talking about the de facto standard NSS, as found in Solaris and Linux; and now FreeBSD 5 [*] and soon NetBSD [**]. You are talking about some better mousetrap. The latter

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 07:36:45PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: Daniel O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What _REAL WORLD_ task does this slow down? I suspect 'make world' takes a serious hit. It does not (Warner has quoted numbers a few times now). Kris pgp0.pgp Description:

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Matthew Dillon
:Matt, I'm talking about the de facto standard NSS, as found in Solaris :and Linux; and now FreeBSD 5 [*] and soon NetBSD [**]. You are talking :about some better mousetrap. The latter does not have any relevance :to this thread, which is about dynamic linking in next release of :FreeBSD. : :If

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:39:11PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: So, yes, I do think you guys are being lazy in that regard. If this is the path you've chosen to go then you have an obligation not to tear out major existing system capabilities, such as the ability to generate

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Matthew Dillon
: is the path you've chosen to go then you have an obligation not to : tear out major existing system capabilities, such as the ability to : generate static binaries, in the process. : :If this is what you think has happened, you're living in some parallel :fantasy universe. I am

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Jacques A. Vidrine
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:39:11PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: My original opinion still stands... you guys are using this issue as an excuse to basically do away with static binaries, rather then fixing the real problem which is an inability to dynamically load modules in a

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:15:58PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: : is the path you've chosen to go then you have an obligation not to : tear out major existing system capabilities, such as the ability to : generate static binaries, in the process. : :If this is what you think has

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Matthew Dillon
:No, what you said was not to tear out..the ability to generate static :binaries. That's completely different, and is absolutely not what :has happened, or what is planned. Static binaries continue to be :supported, available, and work with the system NSS and PAM modules as :before. I

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Brad Knowles
At 11:50 AM -0800 2003/11/25, Matthew Dillon wrote: ... Or you can build an IPC mechanism that implements the PAM functionality and then have programs which would otherwise use PAM instead use the IPC mechanism. Which is the whole point of having the IPC mechanism in the

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 11:27 PM +0100 11/25/03, Brad Knowles wrote: At 11:50 AM -0800 2003/11/25, Matthew Dillon wrote: ... Or you can build an IPC mechanism that implements the PAM functionality and then have programs which would otherwise use PAM instead use the IPC mechanism. Which is the

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Brad Knowles
At 2:48 PM -0800 2003/11/25, Matthew Dillon wrote: What I am advocating is that FreeBSD-5 not marginalize and restrict (make less flexible) basic infrastructure in order to get other infrastructure working. If you've got working, debugged code that works in the manner you

NSS and PAM, dynamic vs. static (was: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh)

2003-11-25 Thread Matthias Andree
Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How much do you intend to use NSS for? I mean, what's the point of adopting this cool infrastructure if all you are going to do with it is make a better PAM out of it? The important thing is that NSS allows to plug modules such as LDAP or

Re: NSS and PAM, dynamic vs. static (was: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh)

2003-11-25 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 02:00:08AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: As a user, I like /rescue better than the step-child that /stand/* used to be. It's part of the world, which /stand wasn't. Except that we still have /stand. It should be shot, but some won't let it go...

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread David O'Brien
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:07:55PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: What about the newer version of gcc? That is considerably slower than previous versions, but I don't see people screaming to have it removed. Uh... you must not know what you are talking about. GCC *COMPILES* slower as it does a

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Daniel O'Connor
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 13:25, David O'Brien wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:07:55PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: What about the newer version of gcc? That is considerably slower than previous versions, but I don't see people screaming to have it removed. Uh... you must not know

Re: NSS and PAM, dynamic vs. static (was: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh)

2003-11-25 Thread Matthias Andree
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 02:00:08AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: As a user, I like /rescue better than the step-child that /stand/* used to be. It's part of the world, which /stand wasn't. Except that we still have /stand. It should be shot, but

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Michael Edenfield
* boyd, rounin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031125 05:16]: i see that there some doubt about whether running lots of shell scripts ever happens. what happens when you use make? lots of shells get run and they run small (one line?) scripts. Just to provide some real-world numbers, here's what I got

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Michael Edenfield
* M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031125 12:07]: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] boyd, rounin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : i see that there some doubt about whether running lots of : shell scripts ever happens. what happens when you : use make? lots of shells get run and they run

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Edenfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : * M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031125 12:07]: : In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : boyd, rounin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : : i see that there some doubt about whether running lots of : :

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-25 Thread Colin Percival
At 00:23 26/11/2003 -0500, Michael Edenfield wrote: Static /bin/sh: real385m29.977s user111m58.508s sys 93m14.450s Dynamic /bin/sh: real455m44.852s user113m17.807s sys 103m16.509s Given that user+sys real in both cases, it looks like you're running out of

40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Here is a simple test which times the execution of a null shell script. It basically times fork/exec of the chosen shell. % cat harness.sh #!/bin/sh sh=$1 cnt=$2 i=0 while [ $i -le $cnt ]; do $sh ./foo i=`expr $i + 1` done #eof %cat foo exit #eof % ldd sh.dynamic

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread boyd, rounin
So.. forking a dynamic sh is roughly 40% more expensive than forking a static copy of sh. This is embarrassing. read the original paper carefully:

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Daniel O'Connor
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

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 3:15 PM -0500 11/24/03, Andrew Gallatin wrote: Here is a simple test which times the execution of a null shell script. It basically times fork/exec of the chosen shell. So.. forking a dynamic sh is roughly 40% more expensive than forking a static copy of sh. This is embarrassing. To be more

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Frank Mayhar
Daniel O'Connor wrote: What _REAL WORLD_ task does this slow down? I think the point was that, in this particular worst case, it's a forty percent performance hit. What's the average case? What's the case for a real world pipeline with a lot of tiny little static binaries? I dislike this

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Dan Nelson
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

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread M. Warner Losh
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

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Kent Stewart
On Monday 24 November 2003 05:25 pm, M. Warner Losh wrote: 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

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Daniel O'Connor
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 11:36, Frank Mayhar wrote: Daniel O'Connor wrote: What _REAL WORLD_ task does this slow down? I think the point was that, in this particular worst case, it's a forty percent performance hit. What's the average case? What's the case for a real world pipeline

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Daniel O'Connor
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 11:52, Dan Nelson wrote: 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

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Daniel O'Connor writes: On Tuesday 25 November 2003 11:52, Dan Nelson wrote: 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

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Frank Mayhar
Steve Kargl wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:06:52PM -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote: Kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? Let's see. You dislike the dynamic root decision enough that you are considering the abandonment of FreeBSD. Then when you're told that you can still build a

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Daniel O'Connor writes: It is _trivial_ to buildworld with a static root. Then its equally trivial to build with a dynamic root. Please do so, and don't wreck the performance of the OS I've used since 1994. Why didn't you pipe up when this was discussed _long_ ago? In the orginal

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Frank Mayhar
I'm not going to add to the heat in the rest of the email, but this is a very good question: Daniel O'Connor wrote: Why didn't you pipe up when this was discussed _long_ ago? Honestly, I don't remember the discussion. It's certainly possible that I may have missed it. I just dug around in the

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Daniel O'Connor
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 12:23, Frank Mayhar wrote: Let's see. You dislike the dynamic root decision enough that you are considering the abandonment of FreeBSD. Then when you're told that you can still build a static root if you need/want it, you make a sarcastic remark. It wasn't

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Don Lewis
On 25 Nov, Daniel O'Connor wrote: On Tuesday 25 November 2003 11:52, Dan Nelson wrote: 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

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Leo Bicknell
In a message written on Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:12:59PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: If you have a file, web, mail, database, etc server it's predominant application is already dynamically linked. It just occured to me what bothers me about this line of thinking, since several people have

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : I'll bet a larger percentage of our users build ports than need nss or : ldap. I'll bet a larger percentage of the people are ignoring this thread than reading it since it has been so devoid of concrete numbers.

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Andrew Gallatin
M. Warner Losh writes: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : I'll bet a larger percentage of our users build ports than need nss or : ldap. I'll bet a larger percentage of the people are ignoring this thread than reading it since it

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Frank Mayhar
Daniel O'Connor wrote: You DO know FreeBSD is a cooperative project right? Of course I do. I was using it when it was just 386BSD 0.1 and a patchkit. I've watched it through a lot of changes and while I've never been a part of the team, mostly due to lack of time, I try to throw whatever I can

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : : M. Warner Losh writes: : In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : : I'll bet a larger percentage of our users build ports than need nss or : : ldap. :

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread David Leimbach
On Nov 24, 2003, at 8:09 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : I'll bet a larger percentage of our users build ports than need nss or : ldap. I'll bet a larger percentage of the people are ignoring this thread than

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Clement Laforet
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:14:23 +1030 Daniel O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. OK my bad, it will probably slow down the ports building. you can use put

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Lars Eggert
M. Warner Losh wrote: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : I'll bet a larger percentage of our users build ports than need nss or : ldap. I'll bet a larger percentage of the people are ignoring this thread than reading it since it has been so

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Clement Laforet
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 03:26:14 +0100 Clement Laforet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :27 CET 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/LUCIFER i386 Forget about it :-) Next time i should think befor posting ;-) sorry for the noise clem ___ [EMAIL

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Scott Long
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Frank Mayhar wrote: Daniel O'Connor wrote: You DO know FreeBSD is a cooperative project right? Of course I do. I was using it when it was just 386BSD 0.1 and a patchkit. I've watched it through a lot of changes and while I've never been a part of the team, mostly due

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 07:19:31PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : : M. Warner Losh writes: : In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : : I'll bet a larger

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : What qualifies as a concrete, real benchmark? I take it you don't : think Drew's qualifies. No. forkbomds are realworld. Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Daniel O'Connor
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

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Peter Wemm
M. Warner Losh wrote: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : : M. Warner Losh writes: : In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : : I'll bet a larger percentage of our users build ports than

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Geoff Speicher
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 03:15:57PM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote: % /usr/bin/time ./harness.sh ./sh.dynamic 100 1.60 real 0.21 user 1.18 sys % ./harness.sh ./sh.static 100 1.12 real 0.08 user 0.87 sys So.. forking a dynamic sh is roughly

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Andrew Gallatin
M. Warner Losh writes: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm just saying that most of the developers I'm talking to on IRC say this tread is insane, has no content and they are blowing it off because of that. A concrete, real benchmark will go a long way towards changing that. Until then,

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Colin Percival
Newbie developer question Would it be possible to ship a static /bin/sh and a dynamic /bin/dynamic-sh, with /bin/sh execing /bin/dynamic-sh if it is invoked interactively? If I'm understanding the issues correctly, a dynamic /bin/sh is desired for the benefit of interactive users, while the

Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

2003-11-24 Thread Matthew Dillon
:Ding! Oh god, not another one! *plonk* : :We need nsswitch type functionality in /bin/sh. To the people who want to :make it static, lets see some static binary dlopen() support or a nsswitch :proxy system. : :If half as much effort had been spent on implementing such a thing as there :has been

  1   2   >