On Monday 24 November 2003 07:06 pm, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> 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, you are as good as kill filed.
>
> 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 /bin in turn):
>
> static: 96.63 real 53.45 user 39.27 sys
> dynamic: 112.42 real 55.51 user 51.62 sys
>
> The wall clock is bad (16% worse) and the system time is worse (31%).
>
>
> So..
>
> 1) Microbenchmark: 40% worse
> 2) Bootstone(*): 25% worse
> 3) Ports: 16% worse
I don't believe it was ever demonstrated there was no significant performance
loss. I think the switch should not be made until this is resolved. netbsd
went through this recently and made an effort to bring performance of a
dynamic root in line with a static root before making the change.
Sam
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
