Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

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 to lack of time, I try to throw whatever I can at
> it when I'm able.
>
> On the _other_ hand:
>
> > I hardly think you're in a position to complain about a (probably very minor)
> > performance loss which has a trivial work around, which also benefits a fair
> > number of users.
>
> _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 complexity).  There's proof for our assertions, but all I'm
> hearing from you guys is handwaving.
>
> And I'm _not_ trying to be insulting or condescending.  I've done handwaving
> myself in the past, but I try to be aware of it and only do it when I can
> justify it.  In this case, the handwaving is in place of real evidence.
> So, how much does it help?  How _many_ users will it benefit, in general?
> Sure, it doesn't matter for a webserver that runs httpd or for a database
> server that does nothing but run Postgresql, but those cases are irrelevant
> to the issue of a dynamically-linked root.  They are affected neither way.
> It is people who run a variety of applications that will be affected,
> either good or bad.
>
> So, we've seen data about the performance hit.  What about data about
> improved performance or improved function in some other way?  What is
> the compelling reason to move to a dynamic root?

Ok, I've about had it with this thread.  Please look at the beginning of
the argument last week where I CLEARLY layed out the benefits of dynamic
root.  If you want me to go around the globe and take a count of every
person that might be benfited by it, please offer me a salary to do so.
Otherwise, I really don't want to hear any more statements like above.

>
> So far I've seen no argument that was even convincing, let alone compelling.

I supported the decision because:

1.  It has been requested for years
2.  It benefits PAM and NSS.
3.  It is easy to revert.

If you want more details on those three points, please go back and re-read
your email.

Now please move along and revert it on your local system.  There are far
too many REAL problems out there that need to be addressed so that 5.2 can
go out the door.  This is just wasting time and energy.

Scott