Am 15.10.2013 19:32, schrieb Jan Kratochvil: > On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:27:23 +0200, Dhiru Kholia wrote: >> In spite of this fact, I believe that they are enough to demonstrate >> that prelink is not resulting in any big gains anymore. > > Nobody says prelink brings _big_ gains. It is just a negligible performance > and negligible battery optimization nowadays. > > I just do not understand why to give up on that negligible optimization when > it brings no disadvantages. > > The disagreement here is whether it brings some disadvantages or not. > > So the discussion should rather be if the average (default) user faces the > claimed disadvantages or not (*), and therefore whether prelink should be > installed by default or not. * look at the amount of updates and how they hit prelinked libraries until prelink ran again * look at the "lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr" output caused by prelink * look at the wasted cycles of running prelink itself and compare to the gain in the past on notebooks i hated prelink and god bless the maintainer which removed the prelink-require out of rkhunter which was pervert most of the time i noticed the weak performance while prelink ran between that i got alarmed all the time by rkhunter-notifies *because* i should prelink this and that file hence - at the end of the day prelink itself consumed more CPU and did more harm as it ever could have gained performance
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
