[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:10:42 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: -Wl,-z,now
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 06:46:10PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> To test frequent executions of coreutils out of a bash script I've run
> the following script at vim's source directory:
>
> for i in $(seq 1 100); do ./configure; done
>
> It should execute significant number of awk, uname, ls, etc.
>
> The difference in -z,now and without it is negligible - less than a
> second of total 19 min 47 secs. So, I still think we should globally
> enable it and disable for specific binaries :-)
OK.
> Would perl/etc. really suffer from 10% startup slowdown? AFAIU the most
> significant slowdown of web services is SQL or bloated script, but not
> an interpreter.
You're right, it rarely matters if we're able to execute a script 3000
or 3300 times per second. Typical website request rates and bottlenecks
are much lower than that. At something like 100 req/sec this may amount
to 0.3% of total CPU time spent. Perhaps we can afford that.
BTW, also similarly relevant is suexec startup time. So we're paying
this price twice if we're executing a script via suexec. However,
suexec is so tiny that the impact on its startup time is probably a lot
less (like 1% maybe?)
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
