DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-11
Re: Am I way off base here?
At 8:15 PM -0500 11/25/03, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 6:49 PM -0500 11/25/03, Skip Ford wrote:
I have my
own good ideas which I'd like to see implemented which
would address the performance issues.
If my opinion above is correct, you'll be given a really
hard time if you try to undo dynamic root regardless of
the validity of your argument. If you're not, I'm wrong.
My goal is to explore speed improvements and caching for
dynamically-loaded binaries. We will never want to have
all binaries statically-loaded, so why should we get so
hung up on statically-loaded executables for performance?
I'd also note that some of my ideas are based on mainframe
operating systems that I worked on more than twenty years
ago. I am not a kernel-level programmer in Unix land, but
I was basically that level on a 370 mainframe OS. We used
to run hundreds of users on hardware that was much smaller
than the cheapest-shit PC that you can buy today. There are
plenty of performance-ideas which Unix has not yet explored.
But it never will explore them if there's so much hostility
to *trying* some alternate ideas, and then *measuring* how
they work out.
One of the things I have liked about some of the work that
Matt has done in the past is that he's good at testing and
measuring things, to make sure a change has had the effect
that he expected it to have. That's the way to keep moving
forward, instead of constant shouting matches where each
side tries to yell louder than the other side.
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@xxxxxxxxxxx
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@xxxxxxx