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
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
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
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
> impl
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 LD
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
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 scr
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 m
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 build
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 help
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
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%
> user11
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
T
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:
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 challeng
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
>
* 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
: > 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
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
: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 look
* 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:
>
> >Stati
* 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]> writ
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 02:00:08AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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
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
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
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,
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 m
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 lot
* 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
* 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 g
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 02:00:08AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > As a user, I like /rescue better than the step-child that /stand/* used
> > to be. It's part of the world, which /stand wasn't.
>
> Except that we still have /stand. It should be shot
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 k
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
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 02:00:08AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> As a user, I like /rescue better than the step-child that /stand/* used
> to be. It's part of the world, which /stand wasn't.
Except that we still have /stand. It should be shot, but some won't let
it go...
___
Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
The important thing is that NSS allows to plug modules such as LDAP
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
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
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
: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 thi
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 t
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
:> 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
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
> genera
: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
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
Descri
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 doe
: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 ca
"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/l
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 slow
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 dy
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
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
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 man
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 anyw
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
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
> fundamen
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,
>
> 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 smalle
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/lis
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 recove
:...
: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.
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 p
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 i
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.
Th
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
:
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
./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
>
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 1
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 defaul
> 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 sys
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 concret
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 invo
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.
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
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] maili
: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
:
:>
:> :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 bin
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
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 Fr
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
: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 current
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 t
: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 bee
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 /
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
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 rou
"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 user
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
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 l
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:
> : > :
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
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 PROTEC
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 de
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
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 rea
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
: > :
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
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
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 numbe
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 br
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
