Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 > the very same argument you are making, so I thought you deserved to hear it. Except that bash at least is linked statically in ports, supports none of this, and people don't seem to want to change it. Gotta love consistency. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 size just isn't a priority. Don't use it then, and let the thread die. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:48:27PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: > 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 LDAP. FreeBSD currently has a strong bias for NIS over LDAP; I > just think we should support both equally. > > How would this affect a static root? > > Make it a lot smaller and faster, for starters. NIS adds > as much as 400k each to many programs in /bin and /sbin. > Over a quarter of a static /bin/sh is from NIS support. > > 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 NSS/PAM daemons to satisfy such requests. Such daemons > are surprisingly simple to implement, in my experience. I'm > skeptical of efforts to use dlopen() with static binaries; static > binaries don't have symbol tables, so there's no way to resolve > references from the dlopen()-ed library back into the executable. > > I'm curious, though. The single most convincing argument so far in > favor of a static root has been performance. Doesn't the NIS network > overhead swamp any performance gains from static linking? I suspect > you have other reasons for wanting a static root. (Or do you only > require certain executables to be static, such as /bin/sh?) 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 size just isn't a priority. Bob > > Tim Kientzle -- Bob Willcox First Law of Procrastination: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Procrastination shortens the job and places the Austin, TX responsibility for its termination on someone else (i.e., the authority who imposed the deadline). ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 NSS/PAM daemons to satisfy such requests. Such daemons are
> surprisingly simple to implement, in my experience. I'm skeptical of
> efforts to use dlopen() with static binaries; static binaries don't
> have symbol tables, so there's no way to resolve references from the
> dlopen()-ed library back into the executable.
>
> I'm curious, though. The single most convincing argument so far in
> favor of a static root has been performance. Doesn't the NIS network
> overhead swamp any performance gains from static linking? I suspect
> you have other reasons for wanting a static root. (Or do you only
> require certain executables to be static, such as /bin/sh?)
The programs in /bin or /sbin that link the NIS stuff in don't use it
all that often (rm, for example, will only do a user_from_uid call in
the -i case for a file not owned by the deleter), and unaccessed pages
in a static executable cause no performance hit. I'm not sure that any
program in /bin or /sbin really does enough lookups for it to be a
speed factor. Quite a few of the ones that pull in the NIS code really
do it for resolving hostnames. /bin/sh is the best argument for an
external NSS lookup agent, since it should be fast but occasionally may
want to do NSS calls.
To list programs that pull in NIS:
ident /bin/* /sbin/* | awk '/^[^ ]/ { cmd=$1 } /nsdispatch/ { print cmd }'
--
Dan Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 LDAP. FreeBSD currently has a strong bias for NIS over LDAP; I just think we should support both equally. How would this affect a static root? Make it a lot smaller and faster, for starters. NIS adds as much as 400k each to many programs in /bin and /sbin. Over a quarter of a static /bin/sh is from NIS support. 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 NSS/PAM daemons to satisfy such requests. Such daemons are surprisingly simple to implement, in my experience. I'm skeptical of efforts to use dlopen() with static binaries; static binaries don't have symbol tables, so there's no way to resolve references from the dlopen()-ed library back into the executable. I'm curious, though. The single most convincing argument so far in favor of a static root has been performance. Doesn't the NIS network overhead swamp any performance gains from static linking? I suspect you have other reasons for wanting a static root. (Or do you only require certain executables to be static, such as /bin/sh?) Tim Kientzle ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 exists for people with special requirements: > * Use a lot of shell scripts > * Have very high performance requirements for those scripts > * Does not use LDAP, NIS, or other networked directory services > (I want to move NIS out of libc. Its privileged position > relative to LDAP and other services is rather dated.) 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 and see no compelling reason to switch to LDAP (i.e., NIS satisfies my needs, is configured, and working). Bob -- Bob Willcox First Law of Procrastination: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Procrastination shortens the job and places the Austin, TX responsibility for its termination on someone else (i.e., the authority who imposed the deadline). ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 scripts * Have very high performance requirements for those scripts * Does not use LDAP, NIS, or other networked directory services (I want to move NIS out of libc. Its privileged position relative to LDAP and other services is rather dated.) E.g., someone with a standalone server that's using /bin/sh to run CGIs would be well advised to compile a static /bin/sh. Fortunately, that's easy to do. 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. User shell scripts do rely on tilde expansion. Having that break in any environment relying on networked directory services is a pretty serious loss of functionality. Tim Kientzle ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
Daniel O'Connor wrote: Why didn't you pipe up when this was discussed _long_ ago? I don't understand why you can't buildworld with static slash if you feel so strongly about it. As for that, it was discussed on arch@, not [EMAIL PROTECTED] And _I_, personally, got the impression the plan was to make dynamic world an _option_, not the default. 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. If you are deploying FreeBSD on servers you should build your own release anyway (which is hardly an onerous task). 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 the very same argument you are making, so I thought you deserved to hear it. -- Daniel C. Sobral Gerência de Operações Divisão de Comunicação de Dados Coordenação de Segurança VIVO Centro Oeste Norte Fones: 55-61-313-7654/Cel: 55-61-9618-0904 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 builds behind the screen port these days, which helps (screen implements a virtual display buffer that disconnects screen updates from the display client and the slave pty). Another optimization worth noting is running make -q, which silences a lot of that spam (urban legend has it that the synchronization in parallel makes to write the build messages causes noticeable amounts of contention). I regularly use -s. With the pipe code being completely Giant-free, I don't see a significant performance difference anymore on an SMP machine when the output is not supressed. Ah, I meant -s. And, that is good news. I am still running on a 4.x system most of the time, and (sigh) Linux 2.4.x the rest of the time. -- Jonathan Mini [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.freebsd.org ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 helps (screen implements a virtual display buffer that disconnects screen updates from the display client and the slave pty). Another optimization worth noting is running make -q, which silences a lot of that spam (urban legend has it that the synchronization in parallel makes to write the build messages causes noticeable amounts of contention). I regularly use -s. With the pipe code being completely Giant-free, I don't see a significant performance difference anymore on an SMP machine when the output is not supressed. Scott ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 a virtual display buffer that disconnects screen updates from the display client and the slave pty). Another optimization worth noting is running make -q, which silences a lot of that spam (urban legend has it that the synchronization in parallel makes to write the build messages causes noticeable amounts of contention). On Nov 29, 2003, at 3:22 PM, Garance A Drosihn wrote: I also had some benchmarks of doing 'buildworld' over an ssh connection vs doing it at the console. Oddly enough, the ssh connection was faster in some ways and slower in others. I wonder if there is a speed-up by writing to a file instead of the console? -- Jonathan Mini [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.freebsd.org ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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% > user111m58.508s user113m17.807s => 1.18% > sys 93m14.450s sys 103m16.509s => 10.76% > user+sys => 5.53% What are people doing to make buildworld so slow? Well, I'm not *trying* to make it slow... :-) > Here are some buildworld numbers of my own, from my system. In my case, I am running on a single Athlon MP2000, with a gig of memory. It does a buildworld without paging to disk. I have a similar configuration, except with a single Athlon XP1600 overclocked by 146/133 and I always benchmark full makeworlds. I was unhappy when the gcc pessimizations between gcc-2.95 and gcc-3.0 increased the makeworld time from about 24 minutes to about 33 minutes. The time has since increased to about 38 minutes. The latter is cheating slightly -- I leave out the DYNAMICROOT and RESCUE mistakes and the KERBEROS non-mistake. I keep DYNAMICROOT, RESCUE, and KERBEROS. I'm tempted to drop RESCUE just to see how much of a difference it would make. This also shows why -j should not be used on non-SMP machines. ...so it can only possibly help on systems where unbalanced resources (mainly slow disks) give too much idle time. I got in the habit if using -j3 back on a system where my disks were running ATA/33, even though they should have been faster. (eventually I figured out that the IDE cable had been hooked up backwards) > Buildworld, static, with no '-j', executed /bin/sh 32,308 times. Buildworld, static, with '-j2', executed /bin/sh 32,802 times. Turning on accounting must have pessimized things a bit. I did not turn on accounting. I added a simple kludge to /bin/sh so I would keep track of how often it was called. I had a benchmark of how much that slowed down buildworld, but I've deleted that now. iirc, It wasn't too much, and it would have been the same amount for all the builds that I gave numbers on. I think you are also using a pessimized kernel (with INVARIANTS and WITNESS). makeworld times should be dominated by the gcc hog, but your sys times are almost as large as your user times. Ugh. I forgot to check those. Yeah, I have: INVARIANTS, INVARIANT_SUPPORT, and WITNESS. I used to have them off, but when I bought the newer Althon I turned them back on. I also have them off on my sparc. (I do keep WITNESS_SKIPSPIN, because dropping that gives me more of a penalty than I want). > On all attempts, I started out by doing: rm -Rf /usr/obj/usr/src/* sync ; sleep 1 ; sync ; sleep 1 ; sync > before doing the 'make' command. I use: [...skipping] # Sometimes: export __MAKE_CONF=/etc/nonesuch cd /wherever/src || exit 1 DESTDIR=/c/z/root \ MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX=/c/z/obj \ time -l make -s world > /tmp/world.out 2>&1 I also had some benchmarks of doing 'buildworld' over an ssh connection vs doing it at the console. Oddly enough, the ssh connection was faster in some ways and slower in others. I wonder if there is a speed-up by writing to a file instead of the console? Rebooting doesn't affect the times much in relative terms (...), but it reduces the variance to less than a second provided the system is mostly idle. I had done a few buildworlds before starting any of the buildworlds that I reported, and they seemed to be fairly consistent after the first one. Not "less than a second" though, I think it was a few seconds difference. Mainly I just wanted to avoid the reboots. These tests had chewed up enough of my day as it was... > Aside: building 5.1-"security" on this same hardware took the following times: >real54m10.092s [ 71.03% ] user41m39.121s [ 24.40% ] sys 10m20.325s [ 210.69% ] And those times *are* with 'script' running, as well as a perl-script which I use to summarize "interesting" data from the output of a buildworld. So, those times include extra overhead which is not included in the above buildworlds. That's from a 'make -j3', and obviously has a static /bin/sh. Why so much faster? Now the times are only 20% larger than mine, Building rescue only accounts for about 2 minutes of the 86-54 difference. Hmm. Dunno. I had assumed it was /rescue, but I did mean to go back and get a better idea. It did seem a bit large. It might very well be that the 5.1-"secure" build was done on a 5.1-release GENERIC kernel. Ie, without INVARIANTS, INVARIANT_SUPPORT, and WITNESS. Those numbers are from a left-over log of the build that I just happened to have around, so it was done not in as controlled a setup as the other builds. > For those who think I'm spoiled by fast hardware, ... > ... on my sparc64 box. So
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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: Dynamic /bin/sh: > > real385m29.977s real455m44.852s => 18.22% > > user111m58.508s user113m17.807s => 1.18% > > sys 93m14.450s sys 103m16.509s => 10.76% > > user+sys => 5.53% What are people doing to make buildworld so slow? I once optimized makeworld to take 75 minutes on a K6-233 with 64MB of RAM. Things have been pessimized a bit since then, but not signifcantly except for the 100% slowdown of gcc (we now build large things like secure but this is partly compensated for by not building large things like perl). Michael's K7-500 with 320MB (?) of RAM should be serveral times faster than the K6-233, so I would be unhappy if it took more than 75 minutes but would expect it to take bit more than 2 hours when well configured. > Here are some buildworld numbers of my own, from my system. > In my case, I am running on a single Athlon MP2000, with a > gig of memory. It does a buildworld without paging to disk. I have a similar configuration, except with a single Athlon XP1600 overclocked by 146/133 and I always benchmark full makeworlds. I was unhappy when the gcc pessimizations between gcc-2.95 and gcc-3.0 increased the makeworld time from about 24 minutes to about 33 minutes. The time has since increased to about 38 minutes. The latter is cheating slightly -- I leave out the DYNAMICROOT and RESCUE mistakes and the KERBEROS non-mistake. > Static sh, No -j: Dynamic sh, No -j: >real84m31.366s real86m22.429s => 2.04% >user50m33.013s user51m13.080s => 1.32% >sys 29m59.047s sys 33m04.082s => 10.29% > user+sys => 4.66% > > Static sh, -j2:Dynamic sh, -j2: >real92m38.656s real95m21.027s => 2.92% >user51m48.970s user52m29.152s => 1.29% >sys 32m07.293s sys 34m40.595s => 7.95% > user+sys => 3.84% This also shows why -j should not be used on non-SMP machines. Apart from the make -j bug that causes missed opportunties to run a job, make -j increases real and user times due to competition for resources, so it can only possibly help on systems where unbalanced resources (mainly slow disks) give too much idle time. My current worst makeworld time is almost twice as small as the fastest buildworld time in the above (2788 seconds vs 5071 seconds). From my collection of makeworld benchmarks: %%% Fastest makeworld on a Celeron 366 overclocked by 95/66 (2000/05/15): 3309.30 real 2443.75 user 488.68 sys Last makeworld on a Celeron 366 overclocked by 95/66 (2001/11/19): 4219.83 real 3253.04 user 667.64 sys Fastest makeworld on an Athlon XP1600 overclocked by 146/133 (2002/01/03): 1390.18 real 913.56 user 232.63 sys Last makeworld before gcc-3 on an Athlon XP1600 o/c by 143/133 (2002/05/09) (overclocking reduced and due to memory problems and some local memory-related optimizations turned off): 1532.99 real 1093.08 user 293.15 sys Early makeworld with gcc-3 on an Athlon XP1600 o/c by 143/133 (2002/05/12): 2268.13 real 1613.25 user 313.56 sys Fastest makeworld with gcc-3 an Athlon XP1600 overclocked by 146/133 (maximal overclocking recovered; memory increased from 512MB to 1GB, local memory-related optimizations turned on and tuned) (2003/03/31): 1929.02 real 1576.67 user 205.30 sys Last makeworld before on an Athlon XP1600 o/c by 143/133 (2003/04/29: 2012.75 real 1637.59 user 225.07 sys Makeworld with the defaults (no /etc/make.conf and no local optimizations in the src tree; mainly no pessimizing for Athlons by optimizing for PII's, and no building dependencies; only optimizations in the host environment (mainly no dynamic linkage) on an Athlon as usual (2003/05/06): Last recorded makeworld with local source and make.conf optimizations (mainly no dynamic linkage) on an Athlon as usual (2003/10/22): 2225.83 real 1890.64 user 256.33 sys Last recorded makeworld with the defaults on an Athlon as usual (2003/11/11): 2788.41 real 2316.49 user 357.34 sys %%% I don't see such a large slowdown from using a dynamic /bin/sh. Unrecorded runs of makeworld gave times like the following: 2262 real ... with local opts including src ones and no dynamic linkage 2290 real ... with same except for /bin/sh (only) dynamically linked The difference may be because my /usr/bin/true and similar utilities remain statically linked. Fork-exec expense depends mor on the exec than the fork. >From an old
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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> rate to prevent dictionary attacks? Sounds kind of like SASL... Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita _ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses : [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 part of Mac OS X and Darwin in the form of "man" > pages. > [...] Hmm. Are you offering to port Mach IPC to FreeBSD as well? :-) > FreeBSD has also been offered, at least three times, similar proxy code > from two universities, under BSD license. Can't speak to that, not having seen it. Got some pointers? I'm fine with the notion of using IPC-based directory services, but it's not simply a question of finding a tarball and committing it. There's no lack of standards, APIs, etc, to pick from. Since you're pointing at an Apple solution, it's worth pointing out that Apple has also been in flux on the topic of directory service APIs over the last two years, trying to move away from NetInfo and towards DirectoryServices. One of the things we're still trying to address for FreeBSD is how to fit into a world of distributed directory services where, until the last year or so, it's really been unclear what the most interoperable and easiest to manage solution would be. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Associates Laboratories ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
* 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 following: > > 1) Dynamic linking is slower. > 2) Speed improvements in this area are possible, as > demonstrated by other projects. > 3) PIC code is slower than non-PIC code, in general, and also > gcc runs about 5-10% slower depending on if you are running > out of a shared library or a static one. shared libraries > must use PIC code (at this time). > 4) People like to complain. Just for the record, I've been running WITH_DYNAMICROOT since nearly the day it came out and don't *notice* any problems. Mostly because the noise of dynamic linking overhead gets lost in the noise of "my hardware sucks so bad I have to take a vacation during buildworlds." My startup takes upwards of 5 minutes anyway, another 45 seconds won't even make me blink. I'm certainly not complaining about the performance :) I only posted those numbers to: 1) Give real world numbers, not "interesting but unrealistic numbers" 2) Show that even worst-case numbers weren't on the level of 40% slowdown. 3) Hopefully help someone figure out where to best improve the dynamic linker. --Mike pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
: > 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 improvement is barely noticeable when you prebind /bin/sh. Prebinding is only really useful for much larger programs like mozilla which have thousands or tens of thousands of bindings. These numbers are on DragonFly and will be different on FBsd, but the relative numbers should be similar with a FBsd prebinding implementation. /bin/sh -- static freepg -16 zfod 12 dynamic freepg -46 zfod 34 dyn/prebind freepg -46 zfod 26 <<< saves 8*4=32KB worth of pre-zero'd pages but does not save any anon memory. 1000 runs of /bin/sh -c exit 0 (program to vfork/exec /bin/sh -c exit 0 1000 times). This effectively measures startup overhead only and is not inclusive of what a script might do in addition to starting up. /bin/sh static 11023 zfod's00.54s dynamic 33023 zfod's02.88s dyn/prebind 25023 zfod's02.36s There isn't much of a time improvement but there is a significant improvement in the number of ZFOD's with prebinding. leaf:/usr/obj/usr/src/bin/sh# prebind /usr/obj/usr/src/bin/sh/sh object /usr/obj/usr/src/bin/sh/sh uniqid 986137809 object /usr/lib/libedit.so.3 uniqid -1757875926 object /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5 uniqid 1023436343 object /usr/lib/libc.so.4 uniqid 2011683737 Non-PLT Prebindings: object /usr/lib/libedit.so.3 count 5 object /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5 count 63 object /usr/lib/libc.so.4 count 203 PLT Prebindings: object /usr/obj/usr/src/bin/sh/sh count 106 object /usr/lib/libedit.so.3 count 63 object /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5 count 270 object /usr/lib/libc.so.4 count 638 Non-PLT COPY Prebindings: object /usr/obj/usr/src/bin/sh/sh count 13 -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 crash) that showed that a simple 'make buildworld' slowed down 1-2% depending on how many times I ran them. However, make -s buildworld (with or without -j 4 on my dual athlon) was faster than a normal buildworld, but the dynamic /bin/sh was more like 5-7% slower. The difference here is that there are fewer context switches (and I guess less chance for parallelization). In all make buildworld, the number of page faults was 10x for the dynamic case than for the static case. However, having said that, I think everybody realizes the following: 1) Dynamic linking is slower. 2) Speed improvements in this area are possible, as demonstrated by other projects. 3) PIC code is slower than non-PIC code, in general, and also gcc runs about 5-10% slower depending on if you are running out of a shared library or a static one. shared libraries must use PIC code (at this time). 4) People like to complain. Warner P.S. One interesting note: /bin/sh when linked statically with libedit and libncurses but dynamically with libc runs about 10% slower for my /usr/bin/true/true tests than when all three are dynamically linked. So it seems that not all dynamic linking is bad for performance. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
: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 memory; it's not surprising that dynamic linking has an increased :cost in such circumstances, since reading the diverse files into memory :will take longer than reading a single static binary. : I doubt many systems will experience this sort of performance delta. : :Colin Percival It definitely looks memory related but the system isn't necessarily 'running out' of memory. It could simply be that the less memory available for caching files is causing more disk I/O to occur. It should be possible to quanity this by doing a full timing of the build ( /usr/bin/time -l ), which theoretically includes I/O ops. Dynamically linked code definitely dirties more anonymous memory then static, and definitely accesses more shared file pages. The difference is going to depend on the complexity of the program. How much this effects system peformance depends on the situation. If the system has significant idle cycles available the impact should not be too serious, but if it doesn't then the overhead will drag down the pre-zerod pages (even if the program is exec'd, does something real quick, and exits). I have included a program below that prints the delta free page count and the delta zero-fill count once a second. This can be used to estimate anonymous memory use. Run the program and let it stabilize. Be sure that the system is idle. Then run the target program (it needs to stick around, it can't just exec and exit), then exit the target program and repeat. Leave several seconds in between invocation, exit, and repeat to allow the system to stabilize. Note that it may take several runs to get reliable information since the program is measuring anonymous memory use for the whole system. Also note that shared pages will not be measured by this program, only the number of dirtied anonymous pages. If on an idle system the program is not reporting '0 0' then your system isn't idle :-). The main indicator is the 'freepg' negative jump when the target program is invoked. The zfod count will be a subset of that, indicating the number of zero-fill pages requested (verses program text/data COW pages which do not need zero'd pages but still eat anonymous memory for the duration of the target program). When I tested it with a static and dynamic /bin/sh on 4.8 I got (looking at 'freepg'), 20 pages for the static binary and 50 pages for the dynamic binary. So a dynamic /bin/sh eats 30 * 4K = 120K more anonymous memory then a static /bin/sh. In the same test I got 12 ZFOD faults for the static binary and 34 ZFOD faults for the dynamic binary, which means that 22 additional pre-zero'd pages are being allocated in the dynamic case (88KB). If /bin/sh is exec'd a lot in a situation where the system is otherwise not idle, this will impact the number of pre-zero'd pages available on the system. Each exec of a dyanmic /bin/sh eats 22 additional pages (88K) worth of zero-fill. Each resident copy of (exec'd) /bin/sh eats 120KB more dirty anonymous memory. make buildworld -j 1 may have as many as a dozen /bin/sh's exec'd at any given moment (impact 120K each) depending on where in the build it is. -j 2 and so forth will have even more. This will impact your system relative to the amount of total system memory you have. The more system memory you have, the less the percentage impact. /bin/sh /bin/csh -- --- static freepg -19 zfod 12 freepg -140 zfod 129 dynamic freepg -50 zfod 34 freepg -167 zfod 149 /usr/bin/make (note that make is static by default) -- static freepg -33 zfod 27 dynamic freepg -51 zfod 44 As you can see, the issue becomes less significant on a percentage basis with larger programs that already allocate more incidental memory. Also to my surprise I found that 'make' was already static. It would seem that this issue was recognized long ago. bzip2, chflags, make, and objformat are compiled statically even though they reside in /usr/bin. -Matt /* * print delta free pages and zfod requests once a second. Leave running * while testing other programs. Note: ozfod is not displayed. ozfod is * a subset of zfod, just as zfod deltas are a subset of v_free_count * allocations. */ #include #include #include #include int main(int ac, char
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
* 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: Dynamic /bin/sh:
> > real385m29.977s real455m44.852s => 18.22%
> > user111m58.508s user113m17.807s => 1.18%
> > sys 93m14.450s sys 103m16.509s => 10.76%
> > user+sys => 5.53%
Since I forgot to include this information (sorry!):
Both runs were done by doing:
rm -rf /usr/obj
sync
script
cp -f /bin/sh.{dynamic,static} /bin/sh
file /bin/sh
time make -j 4 buildworld
They were on a single CPU Athlon 500 with 320MB of RAM. I actually
don't normally do -j 4 on this system, only -j 2, but I'm use to
building on the dual Athlons we use to make production kernels and it
slipped in. Since it takes hours to run once it's started I just let it
run. :)
--Mike
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
* 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 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 down < 1% when you switch from static /bin/sh to > : > dynamic. > : > : I'm all for dynamic / and dynamic /bin/sh, but this doesn't even come > : close to what I observed on my systems. I see anywhere from 15% to 20% > : slowdown in buildworld, depending on how bad my hardware already is. I > : posted my most recent numbers earlier. > > My dual athlon make -j 4 buildworld differed by about 16-20 seconds on > a 36 minute buildworld. > > : It's difficult to get lots of these numbers, unfortunately, because it > : takes a good 6-8 hours just to complete one build. But the numbers are > : fairly consistant across the different degrees of old crappy hardware I > : have. > > So you are seeing a about an hour slowdown (16% slowdown on 6 hours is > 1 hour) from before/after? Or are you seeing an hour slowdown from > 4.x -> 5.2-beta? I have two 5.x systems, both with dynamic / that were built within the past month. One's a bit older, probably a month or so, as I was waiting for the statfs changes to settle before upgrading it. The other was built about 3 days ago. The first one is pretty old, I only use it for a firewall because no one will let me spring for a replacement: CPU: Pentium II/Pentium II Xeon/Celeron (399.10-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x665 Stepping = 5 Features=0x183f9ff real memory = 66977792 (63 MB) avail memory = 60477440 (57 MB) ad0: 19470MB [39560/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA33 This machine usually takes 10-12 hours to do a full buildworld with -j 3 (which somehow seems to be the fastest). With static /bin/sh it was took just about an hour and a half less, but again, I could only do one pair since that took the whole day :) The other is slightly better and is my personal FreeBSD workstation, which I run -CURRENT on for test purposes and cuz I like it better :) CPU: AMD-K7(tm) Processor (499.04-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = "AuthenticAMD" Id = 0x612 Stepping = 2 Features=0x81f9ff AMD Features=0xc040 real memory = 335478784 (319 MB) avail memory = 316243968 (301 MB) ad0: 16603MB [33735/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA66 This one completes a buildworld in about 7-8 hours, the static /bin/sh run took about an hour less. I posted those numbers here earlier. I don't have any decent hardware running 5.x, all the new machines in real user are still using 4.8, so these are the only numbers I can come up with. Again, I *like* the ability to have NSS in /bin/sh, and the idea of dynamic linking in general appeals to me. The hour to hour-and-a-half slowdown might seem huge, but `make buildworld` really is the worst case scenario I could come up with, and 15% slowdown in the *worst* real-world case is certainly much better than 40%. --Mike pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 are talking about. GCC *COMPILES* > slower as it does a better job of optimizing (which adds time to the > compiling time). The produced optimzied binaries have quicker > *RUN-TIME*s. For C++ maybe, for C compile times (tripled?) stood in no relation to the run-time "improvements" (minor to negative), but GCC ppl are constantly improving (3.3 and on) and 2.9x was a dead horse. I see only very minor relation to the static/dynamic discussion. I don't know what the reason is for going dynamic by default _now_, but i am sure it got nothing to do with the unbelievable points presented till now like space savings or NSS. Stuff gets default when it's ready, and that would in this case mean after performance of dynamic binaries has improved and those ppl that want to introduce it present a solution, where everything has been thought of, and discussions like /bin/sh or /sbin/sh have already been had and solved. Introduce dynamic option now. Improve dynamic linking and make a good solution for a rescue. Then and only then make it the default. Everything else leads to threads like these, because it doesn't make sense to ppl. aha ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 real455m44.852s => 18.22% user111m58.508s user113m17.807s => 1.18% sys 93m14.450s sys 103m16.509s => 10.76% user+sys => 5.53% Here are some buildworld numbers of my own, from my system. In my case, I am running on a single Athlon MP2000, with a gig of memory. It does a buildworld without paging to disk. Static sh, No -j: Dynamic sh, No -j: real84m31.366s real86m22.429s => 2.04% user50m33.013s user51m13.080s => 1.32% sys 29m59.047s sys 33m04.082s => 10.29% user+sys => 4.66% Static sh, -j2:Dynamic sh, -j2: real92m38.656s real95m21.027s => 2.92% user51m48.970s user52m29.152s => 1.29% sys 32m07.293s sys 34m40.595s => 7.95% user+sys => 3.84% Buildworld, static, with no '-j', executed /bin/sh 32,308 times. Buildworld, static, with '-j2', executed /bin/sh 32,802 times. (I was expecting a much larger difference between the number of /bin/sh's in a plain 'make buildworld' versus 'make -j2 buildworld' But apparently I was wrong...). On all attempts, I started out by doing: rm -Rf /usr/obj/usr/src/* sync ; sleep 1 ; sync ; sleep 1 ; sync before doing the 'make' command. I usually start up a 'script' command to capture the output of buildworld, but I did not do that for these tests. All of the above buildworlds were typed in at the console. Plain console, no X11 running. All are running on a snapshot of -current as of sometime Tuesday. All are compiling the exact same /usr/src (left over from installing that snapshot of -current). Aside: building 5.1-"security" on this same hardware took the following times: real54m10.092s [ 71.03% ] user41m39.121s [ 24.40% ] sys 10m20.325s [ 210.69% ] And those times *are* with 'script' running, as well as a perl-script which I use to summarize "interesting" data from the output of a buildworld. So, those times include extra overhead which is not included in the above buildworlds. That's from a 'make -j3', and obviously has a static /bin/sh. So, if you take that as the base, then the buildworld for 5.2-release (using *static* /bin/sh and -j2) will see the performance hits that I put in brackets. That probably seems like a pretty horrifying hit, but remember that 5.1-release did *not* build /rescue at all (not for me at least :-), and that is probably a significant part of the increase. I add all this just because it is easy to imagine that some people will do "world-stones" of 5.1-release vs 5.2-release, and might assume that the entire difference is due to /bin/sh or the dynamic /bin & /sbin in general. The above is not a good enough benchmark to say *where* the time has gone, but please consider the issue of building /rescue! I have attempted to do a "decent" job at coming up with all these numbers, but I'm sure they are not perfect. It would be good to use something other than "world-stones" as a benchmark, but of course I'm not volunteering to do that... For those who think I'm spoiled by fast hardware, please note that all of the above has been done while doing just two buildworlds and one buildkernel+installkernel on my sparc64 box (and that second buildworld is not done yet...). So I certainly am interested in how freebsd runs on "slower HW"! -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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, debugged code that works in the manner you > are espousing, and still achieves the same goal of making NSS and PAM > work everywhere, I'm sure we'd all love to see it. > > In the absence of any code contribution to the contrary, I see no > alternative than the method that has been selected. Sure, it's not > great. Sure, it's slower (more or less, depending on which > benchmarks you believe). 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 part of Mac OS X and Darwin in the form of "man" pages. [...] FreeBSD has also been offered, at least three times, similar proxy code from two universities, under BSD license. I think the ball is in the court of the people asking "Where is the code?" to take the code which has been made available, and commit it. Lest this be considered advocacy, let me emphasize that I think it is not the canonically correct approach to do this. FWIW, my personal presference is a libdlopen that can be linked statically. I've explained how to make one three times, have offered my own prototype code (which requires GCC modifications to constructor parameter lists in the generated code, for C++ to continue working), and an European fellow posted an implementation that, while it didn't add full functionality, was good enough to enable writing PAM and NSS modules, at least, even though it would not permit a satically linked JRE to run JNI modules. -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 memory; it's not surprising that dynamic linking has an increased cost in such circumstances, since reading the diverse files into memory will take longer than reading a single static binary. I doubt many systems will experience this sort of performance delta. Colin Percival ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 : > : 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 down < 1% when you switch from static /bin/sh to : > dynamic. : : I'm all for dynamic / and dynamic /bin/sh, but this doesn't even come : close to what I observed on my systems. I see anywhere from 15% to 20% : slowdown in buildworld, depending on how bad my hardware already is. I : posted my most recent numbers earlier. My dual athlon make -j 4 buildworld differed by about 16-20 seconds on a 36 minute buildworld. : It's difficult to get lots of these numbers, unfortunately, because it : takes a good 6-8 hours just to complete one build. But the numbers are : fairly consistant across the different degrees of old crappy hardware I : have. So you are seeing a about an hour slowdown (16% slowdown on 6 hours is 1 hour) from before/after? Or are you seeing an hour slowdown from 4.x -> 5.2-beta? Also, so we can characterize where the suckage happens, how much RAM/CPU does your system have? Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
* 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 small > : (one line?) scripts. > > make buildworld slows down < 1% when you switch from static /bin/sh to > dynamic. I'm all for dynamic / and dynamic /bin/sh, but this doesn't even come close to what I observed on my systems. I see anywhere from 15% to 20% slowdown in buildworld, depending on how bad my hardware already is. I posted my most recent numbers earlier. It's difficult to get lots of these numbers, unfortunately, because it takes a good 6-8 hours just to complete one build. But the numbers are fairly consistant across the different degrees of old crappy hardware I have. -Mike pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
* 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 out of a buildworld: Static /bin/sh: real385m29.977s user111m58.508s sys 93m14.450s Dynamic /bin/sh: real455m44.852s user113m17.807s sys 103m16.509s The dynamic /bin/sh caused just over an 18% performance hit on the make process, everything else being equal (the rest of my / is dynamically linked). It may seem like a pretty large performance hit, but to my the difference between a 6-hour and a 7-hour world build is just an extra hour of Quake :\ --Mike pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 what you are talking about. GCC *COMPILES* > slower as it does a better job of optimizing (which adds time to the > compiling time). The produced optimzied binaries have quicker > *RUN-TIME*s. I'm talking about compile time. > Why would any one want to call for a compiler to be removed that produces > faster binaries?? Ahh, why indeed.. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 better job of optimizing (which adds time to the compiling time). The produced optimzied binaries have quicker *RUN-TIME*s. Why would any one want to call for a compiler to be removed that produces faster binaries?? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 are espousing, and still achieves the same goal of making NSS and PAM work everywhere, I'm sure we'd all love to see it. In the absence of any code contribution to the contrary, I see no alternative than the method that has been selected. Sure, it's not great. Sure, it's slower (more or less, depending on which benchmarks you believe). But it is the best implementation that was available, and this is -CURRENT, where things are expected to periodically be in a state of flux while major changes are underway. -- Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+() DI+() D+(++) G+() e++> h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 whole point of having the IPC mechanism in the first place. That all sounds wonderful! So, when are you going to deliver this fully functioning and debugged code for inclusion in FreeBSD-5.2? My guess is that he will deliver it to DragonFly BSD, and it will then be up to someone with FreeBSD commit privs to look at steal^h^h^h^h^h^h adapting it for our purposes... Note that we are already in the code-freeze for 5.2-release, so I will estimate the probability that all this happens in time for this release is zero. Absolute zero. What might happen for 5.3-release is a different story, of course. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 first place. That all sounds wonderful! So, when are you going to deliver this fully functioning and debugged code for inclusion in FreeBSD-5.2? -- Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+() DI+() D+(++) G+() e++> h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
: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 think you are missing the point I made in that response, because it isn't that cut and dry. Obviously isn't that cut and dry. Why is a dynamic root the default again? Because statically linking NSS and PAM is not the direction FreeBSD-5 is going. So if you are going to start depending on dynamic loading, and I seem to recall a number of conversations where that is, in fact, the intention, then you are marginalizing your static binary support. The more you use NSS and operate on the assumption that DLL will be leveraged, the more you marginalize your static binary support. FreeBSD-5 has *ALREADY* made major concessions, such as going to the dynamic root, precisely because it has *ALREADY* marginalized static binary support. That is what I'm hearing. What I am saying is that for something this fundamental to the infrastructure, it is not appropriate to marginalize static binary support. That is all I am saying here. Sure, I think an IPC mechanism is a better API, but that has nothing at all to do with this DLL / static/dyanmic binary issue in FreeBSD-5. They are two separate issues. Right now, in FreeBSD-5, the issue is the marginalized static binary support. :We're not talking about schedulers. What is at issue is that you :decided, for no reason appropriate to the topic of discussion, to :mention that you think an unrelated FreeBSD developer has difficulties :with logical reasoning. : :What the hell, Matt? By what standards of behaviour is this :acceptable? : :We have rules of conduct on the FreeBSD mailing lists, and people have :been removed in the past because they were unable to hold themselves :to them. Don't think that you're exempt just because you're Matt :Dillon. Yes, and apparently you are breaking them as much as you believe I am, Kris. You are also seriously misinterpreted my postings. I am obviously not advocating that FreeBSD-5 rip everything out and move to an IPC model. It takes time and consideration to be able to do something like that. What I am advocating is that FreeBSD-5 not marginalize and restrict (make less flexible) basic infrastructure in order to get other infrastructure working. -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 happened, you're living in some parallel > :fantasy universe. > > I am simply repeating the reasoning being used for going to a dynamic > root. Forgive me if I misread it, but I believe the argument was that > FreeBSD-5 was migrating to NSS and NSS's DLL mechanism does not work > in a static world, therefore dynamic becomes the default. If I am > wrong and NSS's DLL mechanism can be used in a static world, please > correct me! 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. > :> There is a lot of circular reasoning going on here... it's the same sort > :> of circular reasoning that John uses to justify some of the more esoteric > :> scheduling mechanisms in -current. A because of B because of A, and > :> to hell with anyone who wanted to use C. > : > :Keep the ad homenim attacks to yourself, buster! This was uncalled-for. > : > :Kris > > Well, the scheduler arguments are more involved but I am not incorrect > here. We're not talking about schedulers. What is at issue is that you decided, for no reason appropriate to the topic of discussion, to mention that you think an unrelated FreeBSD developer has difficulties with logical reasoning. What the hell, Matt? By what standards of behaviour is this acceptable? We have rules of conduct on the FreeBSD mailing lists, and people have been removed in the past because they were unable to hold themselves to them. Don't think that you're exempt just because you're Matt Dillon. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/eresources.html#ERESOURCES-MAIL Personal attacks and profanity (in the context of an argument) are not allowed, and that includes users and developers alike. Gross breaches of netiquette, like excerpting or reposting private mail when permission to do so was not and would not be forthcoming, are frowned upon but not specifically enforced. However, there are also very few cases where such content would fit within the charter of a list and it would therefore probably rate a warning (or ban) on that basis alone. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 static binary. No, it is one of the issues that have been pushing FreeBSD (and most other modern UNIX systems, it seems) towards more dynamically linked components. The other issues have also been discussed on this list recently and in the pass. I'm not sure why this one draws such interest. (I participate in this thread only because I feel like I know a thing or two about the NSS details.) Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
:> 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 simply repeating the reasoning being used for going to a dynamic root. Forgive me if I misread it, but I believe the argument was that FreeBSD-5 was migrating to NSS and NSS's DLL mechanism does not work in a static world, therefore dynamic becomes the default. If I am wrong and NSS's DLL mechanism can be used in a static world, please correct me! So exactly how far do you intend to go with NSS? Because it seems to me that FreeBSD-5's goal is to start to depend on the DLL capabilities. If the goal is an intention to depend on DLL then you damn well need to make it work with static ELF binaries. It's that simple. :> There is a lot of circular reasoning going on here... it's the same sort :> of circular reasoning that John uses to justify some of the more esoteric :> scheduling mechanisms in -current. A because of B because of A, and :> to hell with anyone who wanted to use C. : :Keep the ad homenim attacks to yourself, buster! This was uncalled-for. : :Kris Well, the scheduler arguments are more involved but I am not incorrect here. E.G. the priority borrowing exists to work around problems with the mutex implementation. Preemption by non-interrupts threads also exists to work around problems with the mutex implementation. Preemptive cpu migration could be turned off fairly easily and doesn't really count. The priority borrowing is a mess, though. You may think its the best thing since sliced bread but I think it unnecessarily complicates both the scheduler core and the programming model. -Matt ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 static binaries, in the process. If this is what you think has happened, you're living in some parallel fantasy universe. > There is a lot of circular reasoning going on here... it's the same sort > of circular reasoning that John uses to justify some of the more esoteric > scheduling mechanisms in -current. A because of B because of A, and > to hell with anyone who wanted to use C. Keep the ad homenim attacks to yourself, buster! This was uncalled-for. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
: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 you want to talk about FreeBSD 6.x and a better mousetrap, please :go right ahead with a new thread here on freebsd-current or over on :freebsd-arch. : :If you want to talk about the future of DragonFlyBSD, I'm sure there :is an appropriate list for that--- this one ain't it. Parts of your :message certainly seemed to describe what might be best for some other :operating system. : :Cheers, :-- :Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal :[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] : : :Side notes: : :[*] The actual APIs used by Solaris and Linux are *very* different; :and the APIs used by FreeBSD are *somewhat* different from Linux. :However, because the *core concepts* are the same--- dynamic loading, :in-process modules--- portability issues are not much of a problem. : :[**] NetBSD doesn't support dynamic loading yet, but has had :considerable influence on the FreeBSD implementation. NetBSD :developers have indicated to me that they expect to bring in :the FreeBSD changes so that there will be basically the same :implementation on FreeBSD and NetBSD. I'm not sure of the relevance of this comment. 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 static binary. 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? You can use it for basic authentication, sure, but the more things you try to use it for without static binary support the fewer things you can compile statically. You are basically doing away with the static linking capability of the system for no good reason that I can see, and coming up with all sorts of extra junk, like /rescue, to work around that fact. You are creating a huge mess *JUST* to be able to port a dynamic load NSS framework and you are throwing away functionality left and right to get it. That's no good in my book. If you *REALLY* want dynamic load NSS then you ought to spend the time to make it work with static binaries rather then just being lazy and getting rid of static binaries. 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 static binaries, in the process. If the APIs are totally different then I don't see any difference between your direct NSS implementation and my ability, within an IPC framework, to implement NSS as a backend service. I suppose you can call me work "building a better mousetrap", implying that I am doing work that has already been done, but it is really no different then what you are doing in FreeBSD-5 by changing existing API standards to suit your particular implementation. There is a lot of circular reasoning going on here... it's the same sort of circular reasoning that John uses to justify some of the more esoteric scheduling mechanisms in -current. A because of B because of A, and to hell with anyone who wanted to use C. What I am doing is not reinventing the wheel, I am simply reinventing the API that the backend of libc uses to access resources. There is nothing preventing me from then implementing something like NSS and PAM on the backend of the new API, as a service rather then as a DLL. I fully expect that someone will do that, in fact, possibly even me. But I also expect that straight IPC will solve at least as many problems and in fact solve significantly more problems then the DLL NSS solution solves. So, yes, IPC will be the basis used in DFly. That does not invalidate my comments vis-a-vie the dynamic/static problem with NSS and PAM that FreeBSD-5 has. If you want to do it right then make DLL's work with static binaries. If you want to do it wrong then ignore static binaries. It is that simple. -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 does not have any relevance to this thread, which is about dynamic linking in next release of FreeBSD. If you want to talk about FreeBSD 6.x and a better mousetrap, please go right ahead with a new thread here on freebsd-current or over on freebsd-arch. If you want to talk about the future of DragonFlyBSD, I'm sure there is an appropriate list for that--- this one ain't it. Parts of your message certainly seemed to describe what might be best for some other operating system. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Side notes: [*] The actual APIs used by Solaris and Linux are *very* different; and the APIs used by FreeBSD are *somewhat* different from Linux. However, because the *core concepts* are the same--- dynamic loading, in-process modules--- portability issues are not much of a problem. [**] NetBSD doesn't support dynamic loading yet, but has had considerable influence on the FreeBSD implementation. NetBSD developers have indicated to me that they expect to bring in the FreeBSD changes so that there will be basically the same implementation on FreeBSD and NetBSD. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
: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 can be proxyed while others done in-process. :You don't have to rewrite existing NSS modules so that they take into :account that they are really serving multiple processes--- which :usually means adding credentials management, locking, per-process :state, and so forth to each NSS module. Or you could just create a :whole new NSS API and call it something else and forget about support :for existing NSS modules. : :Caching results (which is different than out-of-process :implementations, the Linux nscd authors are just confused) does :require a daemon, but this doesn't really complicate things. (I :should get around to that someday :-) : :That said, I would not stand in the way of a well-thought out, :well-written NSS implementation that attempts to proxy every get*() :call over e.g. RPC. (Hmm, sounds like NIS to me. I guess that's :partially explains why PADL.com's NIS<->LDAP gateway is popular :-) Well, here's the issue... where do you think the future is? I believe the future is in large, extended clusters of machines which either need to agree on their management resources or which need to be capable of hierarchically accessing a global resource namespace. Sure you can do this within the nsswitch framework, by writing particular NSS modules that then going out and implementing some other proxy protocol. But most NSS modules are not going to be written with IPC in mind so it would be a fairly difficult and involved job to create an integrated framework capable of the above within NSS. Without doing that you would be restricted to only those modules which are directly capable of proxying *AND* you would have to contend with various proxy-capable modules using different protocols. In otherwords, it's a mess. It seems silly to waste your time on a framework that you are just going to have to rip out again a year or two from now. By using an IPC mechanism from the start the framework and centralization issues go away. Poof, gone. No issue. A module written as an IPC service doesn't know or care (other then for authentication purpopses) who is making requests of it. In DFly it is particularly important because we are going for an SSI-capable result and you just can't do that with NSS (at least not without devaluing the NSS mechanism so much you might as well not have used it in the first place!). The absolute worst case in an IPC framework is that the program trying to access service X and not being able to find it would have to fork/exec the service binary itself to create the IPC connection. This, of course, would only occur under extrodinary circumstances (such as when you are in single-user mode). But despite the overhead we are only talking about two lines of code, really. fork() and exec(). Well, three... pipe(), fork(), and exec(). In regards to caching... with an IPC mechanism the client can choose to cache the results however it pleases. The IPC mechanism can simply notify the client asynchronously if a cache invalidation is required. That's what a real messaging/port protocol gives you the ability to do. So generaly performance using the IPC mechanism is going to be as good or better then what we currently have with uncached flat files or uncached databases. Which brings up yet another cool result ... when you use an IPC mechanism you don't need to generate DBM's. The service process itself will simply scan /etc/master.passwd, /etc/group, and so forth, and build its own in-memory database. Being able to get rid of the DBMs is only part of the equation because it also means that files which are not otherwise DBM's, such as /etc/services and /etc/group, enjoy the same feature. :Um, if you can't trust the authentication code, what can you trust? :Furthermore, for many many many applications that use getpwnam(3) and :so on, increased privileges are not needed or wanted. Think out of the box.Consider a multi-layered approach. Take access to master.passwd for example. Would you have (A) the authentication code integrated into the potentially buggy program be able to access the file directly or would you rather have (B) the authentication code access an IPC service which *ONLY* allows challenge/response, does *NOT* give you direct access to the encrypted contents of the password file, and which limits the challenge rate to prevent dictionary attacks? That's about the best example that I can come up with. Think about it... the *ONLY* code that has access to the actual
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
"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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 down < 1% when you switch from static /bin/sh to dynamic. Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 dynamic /bin/sh. We all know and knew that there would be a performance hit. We also all know that a static /bin/sh will work fine in disaster situations. 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. This is certainly my hope. There are more ways to solve the performance problem than just statically-linking /bin/sh. If we do not alleviate the performance issues via other means, then we can certainly statically-link /bin/sh for 5.3-release. We have run with a statically-linked /bin/sh for years, so there is nothing much to *learn* by running with it for the next two months. Yes, there is a performance benefit, but nothing to *learn*. But my fear is that if we *do* address the performance issues, then we'll still shy off a dynamically-linked /bin/sh simply because some folks will say "we don't know that we can trust it", etc. I have no objection if we want to statically-link some things like /bin/sh for 5.3-release, but I don't think we need to do it for 5.2-release -- aka "a snapshot of freebsd-current". -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 . FreeBSD UNIX [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gov.bc.ca/ .http://www.FreeBSD.org/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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, since that will improve the > performance of the other 99.9% of the universe. > What happened to mdodd's prebinding efforts? Drew ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 > > mv'ing a static and dynamic sh to /bin in turn): > > > > static: 96.63 real53.45 user39.27 sys > > dynamic: 112.42 real55.51 user51.62 sys > > > > The wall clock is bad (16% worse) and the system time is worse (31%). > So can we just have a statically linked /bin/sh and get on with life? > 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. Yes, let's do it and get on with it. /bin/sh is critically important to the performance of many things in the system, but shared / is very useful as well - it's allowed me to move my 4.x systems with small / up to 5-current, and / programs can take advantage of NSS and PAM modules that exist *today*. > ... > In any case, I'd really like to see a goal for 5.3-RELEASE that > includes bringing dynamically-linked /bin/sh performance (*much*) > closer to statically-linked /bin/sh performance. Yes -- this is -current: let's get 5.2 out the door and improve on it for 5.3. Guy Helmer ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 stop whining. > > But I won't say that. I feel we need to pressure to improve the performance of dynamic linking. This is not really different from anything else we do in -CURRENT: some things we have to throw out there before it is perfect, in order to reach critical mass. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 /bin in turn): > > static: 96.63 real53.45 user39.27 sys > dynamic: 112.42 real55.51 user51.62 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 So can we just have a statically linked /bin/sh and get on with life? 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. Users who REALLY REALLY need /bin/sh to support 3rd-party NSS modules in the mean time can build /bin/sh dynamically. Or we can have /usr/bin/sh as someone else suggested (most of the FreeBSD world's shell scripts--- which are what we *really* seem to be talking about--- already have #! /bin/sh). I prefer to keep as much of the world dynamic, both for dlopen support and for easier system patching. But I can also understand the desire to avoid a penalty for all those short but oft-run scripts. In any case, I'd really like to see a goal for 5.3-RELEASE that includes bringing dynamically-linked /bin/sh performance (*much*) closer to statically-linked /bin/sh performance. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 restriction on the binary because people are too lazy > to build an IPC based mechanism. Matt, I'm not lazy. (Well, maybe I am, but that's not why I implemented NSS in the canoncial way instead of using IPC.) I've experimented with proxy-based solutions. Such solutions add a lot of complexity with little benefit. The primary NSS backends today are: NIS --- lightweight, proxy would just slow things down Hesiod --- lightweight winbindd --- lightweight (it implements its own proxy) nss_ldap --- could benefit 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 can be proxyed while others done in-process. You don't have to rewrite existing NSS modules so that they take into account that they are really serving multiple processes--- which usually means adding credentials management, locking, per-process state, and so forth to each NSS module. Or you could just create a whole new NSS API and call it something else and forget about support for existing NSS modules. Caching results (which is different than out-of-process implementations, the Linux nscd authors are just confused) does require a daemon, but this doesn't really complicate things. (I should get around to that someday :-) That said, I would not stand in the way of a well-thought out, well-written NSS implementation that attempts to proxy every get*() call over e.g. RPC. (Hmm, sounds like NIS to me. I guess that's partially explains why PADL.com's NIS<->LDAP gateway is popular :-) > Not only silly, but it seems to me > that it also creates security issues. At least with a client/server > model it is possible to isolate the authentication code to, for example, > disallow exec(), filesystem operations, or the opening of any new files. Um, if you can't trust the authentication code, what can you trust? Furthermore, for many many many applications that use getpwnam(3) and so on, increased privileges are not needed or wanted. And if you *are* really talking about authentication code (and not directory services), then you need to get PAM to work in a statically linked world, also. (You can compile PAM statically today, but that means no 3rd-party modules. The same holds for NSS, of course.) > The other huge advantage that IPC has over DLL is that you can switchout > the backend mechanisms on a running system without killing and restarting > anything other then he one service you want to switch out, and if it > doesn't work right you can restart the old one or keep live as a fallback. When using the current NSS implementation, there is no need to kill/restart anything when you update /etc/nsswitch.conf. New modules are dynamically loaded, and any no-longer-referenced ones are unloaded. > the IPC model is so much better then the DLL model for this sort of thing > I don't understand why people are even arguing about it. Because the rest of us are stupid and lazy, remember? :-) Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Operating system advocacy (Was: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh)
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, > after all! Your vision is obviously different. In fact, I expect > that each person has his own vision for the project, so don't > knock me for mine. There is a lot of opinion-knocking happening here on both sides, and tempers are flaring. Can I please ask that all parties take a step back and do what it takes to increase light and reduce heat? > But that has nothing to do with perceived inferiority or > superiority. True, inferiority/superiority issues are notoriously fulminative, and we need to get this track back to the technical level, and away from more personal achievment issues. > The issue isn't so much whether one project is better then the > other as it is whether one is able and willing to borrow a proven > concept from another project to replace the one that maybe isn't > so hot in one's own. No. This thread is about a much more basic issue; the resolution of the static/dynamic issue in the / volume. Which operating system has the better solution, while a valid discussion point, is a side track here, and is serving to add heat, not light. > As it happens, I have borrowed quite a bit of code > from 5.x. As it also happens, I believe that 5.x would benefit > by adopting some of the things that have already been proven to > work quite well in DragonFly. For example, using a statistical > time accumulation model instead of calling microtime() in the > middle of the critical thread switch path, or not preemptively > switching threads operating in kernelland to another cpu, or the > implementation of a mutexless scheduler. Just a few examples. I > can only point out the concepts and ideas and point to the code > in DFly, it is up to FreeBSD-5 developers to take the ball up and > either throw it away or run with it. Good points all. Perhaps they need to be discussed in their own right, and not as a digression to the original thread? > And, just for the record, I feel quite obligated to try to move > the FreeBSD project forward along a path that I believe will be > more beneficial to its users. Careful. You are working hard on a very admirable project; please can you continue to do do, and as-and-when issues from DFBSD prove their worth, they will be adopted by other projects. This is a case where the separation of strong personalities actually works out rather nicely, and you can help this by proving how well DFBSD technology is :-). There have been personality clashes in the past; some of these have been shown to be unresolvable, but we now have the improved situation where the talented folks are still developing BSD code without hindering each other. This way BSD and its users win. The way you can best help BSD is to continue to develop DragonFlyBSD. > Just to be clear: My obligation is to > all the people who use FreeBSD, not to the feelings of particular > developers whos vision(s) I might disagree with. I have no > intent or intention of screwing over FreeBSD (how absurd!) but > you should not mistakenly equate that to me being accomodating to > FreeBSD's current vision which, yes! it is true! I have serious > disagreements with. Sure. There are going to be disagreements, This is why there are 4 BSD's available for free. > Over the years I have recommended FreeBSD to hundreds of people > and I take that responsibility very seriously. Thank you! I hope that you will also be able to do that with DragonFlyBSD. > If it is within the scope of the FreeBSD charter for a person to > post based on a perceived obligation to the end users of FreeBSD, > then I certainly still have a right to post to this group. Sort of. General opinion-mongering, flamage, sidetracking and so on are off-charter. This is "FreeBSD CURRENT", and it is most likely the best to keep it somewhat restricted to that as some folks are starting to get annoyed at the "Dragonfly Advertising". I think that keeping DFBSD-Advocacy/Discussion on FreeBSD lists to a pretty low level would help keep blood pressure down all round (No offense intended, DFBSD is a worthwhile project, its just that inter-project politics are somewhat rough, and I'm trying to cool things down!) M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
> 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 (implying less relocation requirements). > /bin/sh could reasonably be expected to take longer to startup then > /usr/bin/test. another can of worms. various shells have test, true and false built in. so, you have to be very careful in writing a shell comparision benchmark. to complicate matters, ksh (statically linked) has _always_ been faster than sh. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 _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. > > > > OK my bad, it will probably slow down the ports building. > > The ports infrastructure is horribly slow even with a static sh, though > not as glacially slow as installing and patching Solaris 9. > But if the change to dynamic root "provokes" this slowdown that people have been seeing, it would be much better to address the cause and not the symptom. The change to dynamic root here is not the cause, the extra overhead of using dynamically linked tools is, and that should be the main focus point. If the overhead of dynamic linking is reduced, that will benefit all of us, even if we use a dynamic root or not. -- Erik H. Bakke ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
:... :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. So :please, go do what you do best and make DFBSD the envy of the BSD world. :I'll be first in line to pat you on the back when you succeed. : :Scott 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, after all! Your vision is obviously different. In fact, I expect that each person has his own vision for the project, so don't knock me for mine. But that has nothing to do with perceived inferiority or superiority. The issue isn't so much whether one project is better then the other as it is whether one is able and willing to borrow a proven concept from another project to replace the one that maybe isn't so hot in one's own. As it happens, I have borrowed quite a bit of code from 5.x. As it also happens, I believe that 5.x would benefit by adopting some of the things that have already been proven to work quite well in DragonFly. For example, using a statistical time accumulation model instead of calling microtime() in the middle of the critical thread switch path, or not preemptively switching threads operating in kernelland to another cpu, or the implementation of a mutexless scheduler. Just a few examples. I can only point out the concepts and ideas and point to the code in DFly, it is up to FreeBSD-5 developers to take the ball up and either throw it away or run with it. I have not been posting daily, but you seem to be frustrated about something. I can only suggest that blaming me for your frustrations is not going to solve any tangible, technical issue in FreeBSD-5. My posts are technical and to the point. Just because it's coming out of my mouth rather then someone you might respect a bit more doesn't make it any more or less valid. If you cannot address them based on their technical merit then you've missed the point of the post entirely. And, just for the record, I feel quite obligated to try to move the FreeBSD project forward along a path that I believe will be more beneficial to its users. Just to be clear: My obligation is to all the people who use FreeBSD, not to the feelings of particular developers whos vision(s) I might disagree with. I have no intent or intention of screwing over FreeBSD (how absurd!) but you should not mistakenly equate that to me being accomodating to FreeBSD's current vision which, yes! it is true! I have serious disagreements with. Over the years I have recommended FreeBSD to hundreds of people and I take that responsibility very seriously. If it is within the scope of the FreeBSD charter for a person to post based on a perceived obligation to the end users of FreeBSD, then I certainly still have a right to post to this group. -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 rateup > > Looks like sh is the 2nd most frequently executed command on my > system. It is 8.5% of all executed programs on this particular > system. I think slowing down 8.5% of all the programs the system > runs is important. For what it's worth, here's the data that I've taken from the daily process accounting files of one of our somewhat busy shellboxes: # lastcomm -f acct.0 | sed -e 's/ .*.//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head 4829 qpopper 3426 bash 3191 sendmail 1915 sh 1687 httpd 1281 sed 1030 sshd2 952 rm 792 procmail 739 cron # lastcomm -f acct.1 | sed -e 's/ .*.//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head 5383 qpopper 3282 bash 2743 sendmail 1617 httpd 1187 sh 1071 sed 772 rm 739 cron 694 procmail 478 cat # lastcomm -f acct.2 | sed -e 's/ .*.//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head 5376 qpopper 2823 bash 2118 sendmail 1674 httpd 1510 sh 745 procmail 740 cron 292 python 288 atrun 211 inetd Though /bin/sh isn't 2nd on the list, it does feature prominently in the top 10. I would assume that anyone with a fairly busy machine acting as a shellbox and webserver would see something along these lines... Regards, > Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant > > Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/> ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 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 (implying less relocation requirements). /bin/sh could reasonably be expected to take longer to startup then /usr/bin/test. >Dynamically linked prorgrams tend to be a few percent slower than >their static counterparts due to PIC code typically being slower than >non-PIC code. There's nothing new here. Except that, on face value, your figures suggested an 11% slowdown attribute to PIC code - which is way above "a few percent". >Clearly there are problems to look into, but it isn't the end of the >world. Agreed. I think most people agree that more work needs to be done. The arguing seems to be whether the work should be done before or after the big switch is thrown and how to go about recovering the lost performance. (And of course one contingent is insisting it be green whilst a different contingent is insisting that it can't be green and has to be triangular instead). Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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. This has been discussed in one of the recent threads but it boils down to: 1) Static executables don't normally have any symbols available at runtime so it's difficult for a shared library to resolve symbols using definitions in the executable. 2) It is possible (likely?) that a shared library may reference a symbol that does not exist within the executable. 3) Loading libc.so etc to resolve a symbol means that there may be two distinct (and possibly different) instances of the same object associated with a process. This may create problems where those objects have side-effects. Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do : > for m in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do : > for n in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do : >true; : >done; done; done; done; done; done; : : Unless you've done something wierd to your /bin/sh, "true" is a : builtin. This test just to measures the ongoing runtime overhead : of a dynamic executable (ie PIC code). Drew's test was measuring : the startup overhead. 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. : >Clearly dynamic is slower, but it is more like 11% slower (10.67%) on : >the average than 40% slower. I think this would be a more typical : >usage pattern. : : You have measured different things. Drew's test shows that a dynamic : /bin/sh tahes about 40% longer to start. Your test shows that once : started, it runs about 11% slower. And the 11% slower is _very_ : worrying since it is probably more widely applicable than just /bin/sh. Dynamically linked prorgrams tend to be a few percent slower than their static counterparts due to PIC code typically being slower than non-PIC code. There's nothing new here. Clearly there are problems to look into, but it isn't the end of the world. Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > for m in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > for n in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do >true; >done; done; done; done; done; done; Unless you've done something wierd to your /bin/sh, "true" is a builtin. This test just to measures the ongoing runtime overhead of a dynamic executable (ie PIC code). Drew's test was measuring the startup overhead. >Clearly dynamic is slower, but it is more like 11% slower (10.67%) on >the average than 40% slower. I think this would be a more typical >usage pattern. You have measured different things. Drew's test shows that a dynamic /bin/sh tahes about 40% longer to start. Your test shows that once started, it runs about 11% slower. And the 11% slower is _very_ worrying since it is probably more widely applicable than just /bin/sh. Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
./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 this mailing list at the moment. This comment is so ridiculous I can't resist. He has explained a very clever and nice solution for the problem, rather than bitching about it which is what the 95% of the thread is about. By bashing him, not only you're doing a great job for inter-camp relations, you're making the absurd assumption that such a solution (once/if it appears in DragonFly) cannot/will not be easily ported to FreeBSD. Cheers, -- Miguel Mendez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.energyhq.es.eu.org PGP Key: 0xDC8514F1 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 don't bother about NEW features that may appear in dumb, slow, dynamically linked OS. Just put your head in the sand and say "I'm pretty happy with old statically linked OS and I never need new features in it"... World is going forward, and the payment of new features is awesome performance of OLD, not so good profiled (due statical linking) dynamic linking functions. "if it isn't broken - don't fix it". But if you don't use dynamic linking - it's DEFINITELY NOT broken. And will never be fixed. Sincerely, Maxim M. Kazachek mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 08:55:31PM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Daniel O'Connor writes: > > > Why didn't you pipe up when this was discussed _long_ ago? > > In the orginal thread, there was an agreement that the performance > would be measured BEFORE the default was changed, and the default > would only be changed if there was no measurable performance impact. > I believe sam@ asked for this. As far as I know, performance > measurments were never done. Instead, the switch was thrown just > before the code freeze. That's not true. I was asked to present numbers so we could make a determination as to what the impact was. It was never said that it would only be the default iff there was no performance impact. FWIW, I did find that the boot process took a performance hit, I also found that the average worldstone did not increase appreciably (ie, less than 1%). I took these numbers to re@ when I was asked to flip the dynamic switch and the feeling was that the overhead was worth the tradeoff for functionality. Finally, I must ask if anyone has evidence that this has slowed down anything other than microbenchmarks? My point of view was it did slow down the boot, but so did rcNG and no one seemed to mind about that. Also, you don't write time-sensitive applications in shell so the dynamic link overhead is not noticed there. People asked me about the affect on periodic. My response is why do you care if your periodic took 1 extra second to run (on the outside) due to dynamic linking overhead. It's just crazy. In summary, I have yet to see a compelling arguement to consider backing out the dynamic linking changes I've put in. I've read all of the messages in all of the 3+ huge threads and I'm still as resolved today as I was when I made the commit. Frankly, I'm surprised people didn't yell at me when I massively restructured the tree to put libraries in /lib. Turning on dynamic linking was the most minor part from the architectural point of view but is getting the most vitriol. How typical. -gordon pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
> 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 real53.45 user39.27 sys > dynamic: 112.42 real55.51 user51.62 sys > > The wall clock is bad (16% worse) and the system time is worse (31%). So all the worstness is in system time, or nealy all. However, you rant this test only once. : > : > So.. : > : > 1) Microbenchmark: 40% worse : > 2) Bootstone(*):25% worse : > 3) Ports: 16% worse 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do for m in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do for n in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do true; done; done; done; done; done; done; Here's the numbers I got: x sh-s static sh + sh-d dynamic sh +--+ |x x + | |x x + + | |x x x x + + + | |x x x x + + + + + +| |x x x x x + + + + + + + +| ||___A__M_||A__M| | +--+ N Min MaxMedian AvgStddev x 20 1.27 1.31 1.31.2925 0.012085224 + 20 1.4 1.47 1.44 1.431 0.023597502 Difference at 95.0% confidence 0.1385 +/- 0.0119989 10.7157% +/- 0.928346% (Student's t, pooled s = 0.0187469) As you can see, I ran each of the tests 10 times. I timed it using a the tcsh time built-in. I ran each command once before I started timing the commands to reduce cache effects. Clearly dynamic is slower, but it is more like 11% slower (10.67%) on the average than 40% slower. I think this would be a more typical usage pattern. So things are a little bad, but it isn't the end of the world, especially for a 5.2-beta that's going out. Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 real53.45 user39.27 sys > dynamic: 112.42 real55.51 user51.62 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]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
PW> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:56:21 -0800 PW> From: Peter Wemm PW> We need nsswitch type functionality in /bin/sh. To the PW> people who want to make it static, lets see some static PW> binary dlopen() support or a nsswitch proxy system. I started a new thread inquiring about the challenges involved... which received no responses. I assume that not much has changed since the mid- to late-90s list archives I found via Google... What specific aspects of rtld are required to support NSS in static binaries? dlopen(), fixups, and dlsym()? Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita _ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses : [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 12:20, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > OK my bad, it will probably slow down the ports building. > > I'll bet a larger percentage of our users build ports than need nss or > ldap. Err, yes.. Of course you are claiming it should be either/or, which is not very reasonable. 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. Most things are tradeoffs, this is one of them. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :I think that you forgot to attach the patches that demonstrate all of > :this. > : > :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 this > :mailing list at the moment. > : > :Scott > > That's too bad, Scott. You are just going to have to live with it. > > From my point of view anything related to BSD is fair and reasonable > game, and regardless of anything else this mailing list is discussing > topics and things that are near and dear to my heart and I have a perfect > right to comment on them. I've contributed a considerable amount of > time and effort to FreeBSD and I have a right to be on this list. > > From my point of view, it's all under the same open-source umbrella > anyway. The moment you start thinking of a project in isolation is > the moment you start to disconnect from your responsibility to the > project and to all the users and developers who depend on the project. > > I still run a lot of FreeBSD boxes and know people who run a lot of > FreeBSD boxes and, frankly, that gives me just as much right to comment > on the future directions of FreeBSD as you or anyone else. > > So you are just going to have to live with it. Maybe instead of fuming > over DFly you should consider the work from a more technical standpoint. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I am eager to see what you can do with DFBSD. I really, truly, am. Until then, trolling the FreeBSD mailing lists with uninformed statements about 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. So please, go do what you do best and make DFBSD the envy of the BSD world. I'll be first in line to pat you on the back when you succeed. Scott ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Andrew Gallatin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : 1) Microbenchmark:40% worse : 2) Bootstone(*): 25% worse : 3) Ports: 16% worse Thanks for the real numbers. Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
:I think that you forgot to attach the patches that demonstrate all of :this. : :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 this :mailing list at the moment. : :Scott That's too bad, Scott. You are just going to have to live with it. From my point of view anything related to BSD is fair and reasonable game, and regardless of anything else this mailing list is discussing topics and things that are near and dear to my heart and I have a perfect right to comment on them. I've contributed a considerable amount of time and effort to FreeBSD and I have a right to be on this list. From my point of view, it's all under the same open-source umbrella anyway. The moment you start thinking of a project in isolation is the moment you start to disconnect from your responsibility to the project and to all the users and developers who depend on the project. I still run a lot of FreeBSD boxes and know people who run a lot of FreeBSD boxes and, frankly, that gives me just as much right to comment on the future directions of FreeBSD as you or anyone else. So you are just going to have to live with it. Maybe instead of fuming over DFly you should consider the work from a more technical standpoint. -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
:> :> :I supported the decision because: :> : :> :1. It has been requested for years :> :2. It benefits PAM and NSS. :> :3. It is easy to revert. :> :> Easy to revert? You are talking about depending on mechanisms for :> authentication and other things that WILL NOT WORK with static binaries :> as they currently stand and, apparently, will not work in the :> future either. Easy to revert? I don't think so. :> :> More like "Lets do away with support for static binaries entirely". :> Because that is precisely what is happening here. : :What the hell are you talking about What I am talking about is that if the intent in -CURRENT is to start to depend on things like NSS... and it really does make sense to be able to depend on something like NSS, then it will become less and less feasible to compile programs in a way that cannot use NSS. /bin/sh is an excellent example of this. Why is /bin/sh now dynamic again? Why can't it be static? I'm being retorical, but I think it demonstrates the problem and my point quite succinctly. Regardless of whether you have a dynamic root or a static root, FreeBSD is digging itself into a hole if it cannot use these spiffy new mechanisms with static binaries. -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :I supported the decision because: > : > :1. It has been requested for years > :2. It benefits PAM and NSS. > :3. It is easy to revert. > > Easy to revert? You are talking about depending on mechanisms for > authentication and other things that WILL NOT WORK with static binaries > as they currently stand and, apparently, will not work in the > future either. Easy to revert? I don't think so. > > More like "Lets do away with support for static binaries entirely". > Because that is precisely what is happening here. What the hell are you talking about ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
In the last episode (Nov 24), Scott Long said: > I think that you forgot to attach the patches that demonstrate all of > this. > > 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 this mailing list at the moment. I think he's pointing out that within a short time there will be a BSD-licensed nscd we can use. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :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 hand wringing, then we'd have the best of both worlds by now. > : > :I'm sorry to sound harsh, but its the reality of the situation. Code > :speaks louder than words. > : > :Cheers, > :-Peter > :-- > :Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > :"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 > > 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 restriction on the binary because people are too lazy > to build an IPC based mechanism. Not only silly, but it seems to me > that it also creates security issues. At least with a client/server > model it is possible to isolate the authentication code to, for example, > disallow exec(), filesystem operations, or the opening of any new files. > > The other huge advantage that IPC has over DLL is that you can switchout > the backend mechanisms on a running system without killing and restarting > anything other then he one service you want to switch out, and if it > doesn't work right you can restart the old one or keep live as a fallback. > the IPC model is so much better then the DLL model for this sort of thing > I don't understand why people are even arguing about it. > > And, of course, moving all of this junk out means that the libc > implementation becomes a lot smaller... it just becomes an IPC interface > and may be a small local cache rather then the full blown algorithm. > The result? Static binaries become a lot smaller too (not that that > is really a problem anyway). > > This 'it has to be static so dlopen works' argument is just not a good > argument. It's really more of an excuse then an argument. If you > really want to use dlopen then make it work with static binaries. > If you want to do it right, develop an IPC model or use an existing > IPC model. > > That said, an IPC model is precisely what I am developing for DragonFly > (a 'money where your mouth is' response). :-) Right now I'm building > it as a userspace library but I intend to move the rendezvous code > directly into the kernel. Unix domain sockets are so icky(!). They work, > but they are icky. I intend to use it for all resource and > authentication lookups... password, group, services, pam equivalent, > kerberos, resolver, and so on and so forth. Hell, I think I might use > it for C locale too just to be able to rip locale out of libc. > I think that you forgot to attach the patches that demonstrate all of this. 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 this mailing list at the moment. Scott ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
:I supported the decision because: : :1. It has been requested for years :2. It benefits PAM and NSS. :3. It is easy to revert. Easy to revert? You are talking about depending on mechanisms for authentication and other things that WILL NOT WORK with static binaries as they currently stand and, apparently, will not work in the future either. Easy to revert? I don't think so. More like "Lets do away with support for static binaries entirely". Because that is precisely what is happening here. :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 This is a real problem. I have no problem with people who want dynamic roots to get dynamic roots. My problem is with this intention to not fix PAM or NSS in a way that works with static binaries, and my problem is with changing the default from static to dynamic. The result is, down the line, that either (A) it will become impossible to compile anything static, or (B) there will be things you WON'T be able to use NSS for because it will break static binaries. It is a serious logistical and planning mistake, IMHO. -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
Peter Wemm writes: > 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. Maybe this is just nieve, but I always thought that it was the responsibility of the party introducing the creeping feature to underdatand and then minimize a potential performance impact. But now we're treading over ground brought up by John Dyson last week. I've at least partially quantified the performance impact, which is all I have time for. Drew ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
: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 hand wringing, then we'd have the best of both worlds by now. : :I'm sorry to sound harsh, but its the reality of the situation. Code :speaks louder than words. : :Cheers, :-Peter :-- :Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] :"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 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 restriction on the binary because people are too lazy to build an IPC based mechanism. Not only silly, but it seems to me that it also creates security issues. At least with a client/server model it is possible to isolate the authentication code to, for example, disallow exec(), filesystem operations, or the opening of any new files. The other huge advantage that IPC has over DLL is that you can switchout the backend mechanisms on a running system without killing and restarting anything other then he one service you want to switch out, and if it doesn't work right you can restart the old one or keep live as a fallback. the IPC model is so much better then the DLL model for this sort of thing I don't understand why people are even arguing about it. And, of course, moving all of this junk out means that the libc implementation becomes a lot smaller... it just becomes an IPC interface and may be a small local cache rather then the full blown algorithm. The result? Static binaries become a lot smaller too (not that that is really a problem anyway). This 'it has to be static so dlopen works' argument is just not a good argument. It's really more of an excuse then an argument. If you really want to use dlopen then make it work with static binaries. If you want to do it right, develop an IPC model or use an existing IPC model. That said, an IPC model is precisely what I am developing for DragonFly (a 'money where your mouth is' response). :-) Right now I'm building it as a userspace library but I intend to move the rendezvous code directly into the kernel. Unix domain sockets are so icky(!). They work, but they are icky. I intend to use it for all resource and authentication lookups... password, group, services, pam equivalent, kerberos, resolver, and so on and so forth. Hell, I think I might use it for C locale too just to be able to rip locale out of libc. -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 performance of a static /bin/sh is only an issue in non-interactive cases. Colin Percival ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 real53.45 user39.27 sys dynamic: 112.42 real55.51 user51.62 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 Drew ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 40% more expensive than > forking a static copy of sh. This is embarrassing. All this noise because, for every 1,000 invocations of dynamic /bin/sh, you have to wait nearly an extra 5 seconds. Truly embarrassing, indeed. Totally unacceptable for a BETA release. We all could have collectively spawned millions of dynamic shells in the time that it has taken to compile this thread. But we didn't. Can't be all that important, can it? :) Geoff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
"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 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. > : > : Aside from $SUBJECT.. > > 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. 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 hand wringing, then we'd have the best of both worlds by now. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but its the reality of the situation. Code speaks louder than words. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 complexity). There's proof for our assertions, but all > I'm hearing from you guys is handwaving. I don't think any one has said dynamic / is faster. > 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? > > So far I've seen no argument that was even convincing, let alone > compelling. Re-read -current, and the commit messages around this whole thing. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 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. > : > : Aside from $SUBJECT.. > > 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. What qualifies as a "concrete, real benchmark"? I take it you don't think Drew's qualifies. -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
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 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 devoid of concrete numbers. Amen! More benchmarks, less speculation, please. Since both variants are already implemented, any argument lacking measurements is weak. Lars -- Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> USC Information Sciences Institute smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 SH=/rescue/sh in your make.conf if you think it can have an impact... [EMAIL PROTECTED]|(501)| kde3]# ldd /bin/sh /bin/sh: libedit.so.4 => /lib/libedit.so.4 (0x28094000) libncurses.so.5 => /lib/libncurses.so.5 (0x280a9000) libc.so.5 => /lib/libc.so.5 (0x280e8000) [EMAIL PROTECTED]|(502)| kde3]# ldd /rescue/sh ldd: /rescue/sh: not a dynamic executable [EMAIL PROTECTED]|(503)| kde3]# time make clean SH=/bin/sh real0m45.019s user0m20.657s sys 0m18.339s [EMAIL PROTECTED]|(504)| kde3]# time make clean SH=/rescue/sh real0m45.476s user0m20.892s sys 0m18.131s [EMAIL PROTECTED]|(505)| kde3]# uname -ar FreeBSD lucifer.cultdeadsheep.org 5.2-BETA FreeBSD 5.2-BETA #0: Sat Nov 22 21:09:27 CET 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/LUCIFER i386 clem ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 reading it since it has been so devoid of concrete numbers. 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 stop whining. But I won't say that. Dave Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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. : > : > 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. : : Aside from $SUBJECT.. 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. I don't say this to be mean or nasty. I'm just saying that people are sick to death of the arguing without any real facts. Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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? So far I've seen no argument that was even convincing, let alone compelling. -- Frank Mayhar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 has been so devoid of concrete numbers. Aside from $SUBJECT.. Drew ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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. Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 brought it up. When I run kwrite, or Mozilla, or any number of other dynamic apps they are relatively long lived. My database loads (eg, pays the dynamic link penalty) once at startup. By contrast /bin/sh is run often. 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 rateup Looks like sh is the 2nd most frequently executed command on my system. It is 8.5% of all executed programs on this particular system. I think slowing down 8.5% of all the programs the system runs is important. I don't suggest I am representative, but for all those with process accounting turned on you have the commands above, check it out. > If you are deploying FreeBSD on servers you should build your own release > anyway (which is hardly an onerous task). What? Did you read what you wrote? It was a stand alone paragraph, I didn't take it out of context. People who use FreeBSD on servers should build their own release? That's so nutz I don't know where to start to attack it. I think I'll leave it to the third point from www.freebsd.org: ] FreeBSD makes an ideal Internet or Intranet server. It provides robust ] network services under the heaviest loads and uses memory efficiently to ] maintain good response times for thousands of simultaneous user ] processes. Visit our gallery for examples of FreeBSD powered ] applications and services. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 /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. The ports infrastructure is horribly slow even with a static sh, though not as glacially slow as installing and patching Solaris 9. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 sarcastic, it was serious. Needing to have special configuration > defeats the purpose of running FreeBSD for me. I'm busy enough that I > don't have time to deal with everything _now_; adding something else I have > to keep track of for a half-dozen systems is something else I just don't > need. You DO know FreeBSD is a cooperative project right? 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. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 -current archives and couldn't find the it, but my life has been kind of chaotic over the last year or so. In fact, if it happened about a year ago, it could well have taken place while I was in China for three weeks. Believe me, if I had encountered the discussion when it took place, I would have made my feelings known. -- Frank Mayhar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
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 thread, there was an agreement that the performance would be measured BEFORE the default was changed, and the default would only be changed if there was no measurable performance impact. I believe sam@ asked for this. As far as I know, performance measurments were never done. Instead, the switch was thrown just before the code freeze. > > If you are deploying FreeBSD on servers you should build your own release > anyway (which is hardly an onerous task). > Its pretty hard to use the binary update tools that way. Drew ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
