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 precise: shell scripts which do-nothing will be 40% more expensive than they used to be. It is not like the entire operating system will get 40% slower. >I propose that we at least make /bin/sh static. I suggest that we leave all of /bin and /sbin as it is for 5.2-release. We are still telling users that 5.2 is a snapshot of "-current", and it is more valuable to have a wider range of experience with this worst-case scenario. ("worst-case" == all files dynamically linked). We certainly may want to make changes to address the performance issues that you note, but there is no reason we must decide *which* change should be made right now. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad_at_gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad_at_freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih_at_rpi.eduReceived on Mon Nov 24 2003 - 15:43:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:30 UTC