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
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
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
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
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
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
: > :
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
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
Richard Coleman wrote:
I think a better compromise is to add the make.conf option so that extra
utilities may be added to /rescue.
As David already pointed out, this is not entirely trivial.
Adding the programs isn't difficult, but it requires adjusting
library includes, which would be tricky to d
Richard Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you suggesting that (t)csh also move to /usr/bin to match
> /usr/bin/sh? The screams caused by such a change would be deafening.
Would there be any screams at all?
chsh -s /bin/sh root# prevent lock-out
rm -f /bin/csh /bin/tc
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 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
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 25-Nov-2003 Nate Lawson wrote:
>
> Someone more familiar with ithread_loop should probably answer this. One
> workaround might be to enable ACPI_NO_SEMAPHORES on your box.
I built and booted a kernel with ACPI_NO_SEMAPHORES, but it still
hangs at the same point in the boot. The stack trace i
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:
> : > :
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 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
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 06:27:13PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> The debate right now is over what programs from /usr/bin and
> /usr/sbin should be included. Right now, that includes
> tar, gzip, bzip2, and vi/ex.
All but vi(ex) were built statically, but installed into /usr/bin.
--
-- David (
Good people,
I have managed to crowbar ACPI support into working on ThinkPad 560Z
with the attached patch. The problem seems to be that TP returns
everything and a kitchen sink in the list of available IRQs, but expects
OS to use one you have set up using T
On Nov 24, 2003, at 10:56, Ade Lovett wrote:
The executive summary is that after some unfortunate hardware
failures, I picked up an ASUS A7V8X-X motherboard with a 6 USB 2.0
ports.
Just as an addendum, on the advice of someone on irc, I tried booting
both NetBSD (1.6.1) and OpenBSD (3.4) on t
"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 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 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
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 /
: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
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
: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
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
At 8:59 PM -0500 2003/11/24, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Of course not. Nobody in their right mind uses csh for scripting.
To my great horror, csh is used in most of the DNS debugging and
many of the log-processing scripts that I have inherited. One of
these days, I will finally live up to my thr
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:
>
> :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
:>
:> :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
: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
:
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
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
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, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:00:24AM -0500, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
>David O'Brien wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 06:00:36PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>> > Scenarios that require /rescue are ones in which /bin and /sbin
>> > are unusable, which is almost always going to imply a trashed file
>> >
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
Neither side of the static/dynamic root debate wants to give in. And
neither side wants to be one the that has to recompile the world to get
what they want. So make it so that no one wins.
1. Have sysinstall ask whether you want a dynamic or static root installed.
2. When recompiling the world
Agreed.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Coleman
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Make it so that nobody wins
Neither side of the static/dynamic root debate wants to give in. And
neither side
Richard Coleman wrote:
> Neither side of the static/dynamic root debate wants to give in. And
> neither side wants to be one the that has to recompile the world to get
> what they want. So make it so that no one wins.
Actually, I don't have a personal axe to grind so much as I just feel
that t
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
>[ From: set to /dev/null as too many can't follow the Reply-To: ]
>
>On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:00:24AM -0500, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
>> > NO. /rescue was allowed in the system to handle the case of a trashed
>> > file in /lib[exec]. To allow a sysadmin to recover a system from the
>> > same t
> 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 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
> need it or not. :-) So, FTP server is not concern. /rescue/fetch MAY help
> to recover RUINED FreeBSD from ashes... As /rescue/mount_cd9660, or
> mount_msdosfs... In other words we can drom mount_msdosfs from /rescue
> just because almost everybody can burn CD... We will save a few KBytes of
FWI
101 - 146 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
