On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:55:54PM +0000, Jörg Sommer wrote:
> But what counts more in the comparison dash vs. bash is the shell
> startup. And the shell is started for every script not name foo.sh.
Also, if init scripts will be really parallel (meaning lots of
concurrent scripts, not just 2-3), then the smaller memory footprint of
dash may turn out to be even a bigger win than the sequential speed
difference. Some very basic tests using callgrind show that bash uses
20-30 times more CPU cache than dash. And when things are running
parallell, CPU cache is a very expensive thing to waste...
Gabor
--
---------------------------------------------------------
MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
---------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
