In message: <20031125012208.GD46761_at_dan.emsphone.com> Dan Nelson <dnelson_at_allantgroup.com> 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 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 put a : > > dynamically linked sh in /usr/bin/sh). : > > : > > 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" with static : and dynamic /bin. bsd.port.mk spawns many many many /bin/sh processes. Maybe you could try it with both and tell us the actual difference in wall time? WarnerReceived on Mon Nov 24 2003 - 16:25:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:30 UTC