On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Most hardware that was nice and shiny back in 2002 wasn't exactly
> underpowered, seeing as the Pentium 4 and Athlon Palomino was what was
> used back then. So, I kind of doubt that the statement was concerning
> Woody. Try Potato or Slink.
>
> Oh, and 8% is quite a difference if you only have a limited amount to
> begin with. It's not like bash is the only thing that's bloated since
> then either.
>
> On an embedded system, 162kB more storage or 360kB more RAM *is* a big
> difference.
[..]
> But for an embedded system, where the shell is only used for scripts
> anyway, and for that matter, for scripts used on bootup (where speed
> counts), any performance difference and every kB is gonna count.
>
> On a machine with 64MB of RAM, a shell that takes 4.5MB of that is quite
> a hog.
FWIW, we ran bash 1.14.6 in buzz on hardware which was much more
restricted than that. I think my first machine was a 40MHz 386 with 5Mb
or RAM or similar.
Jari's table says
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
30933 foo 16 0 1664 464 396 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 dash
[1.x - 1.14.6]
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
10011 foo 17 0 3348 1988 1132 S 0.0 0.6 0:00.14 bash1
[3.x - 3.1.14]
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
10229 foo 15 0 4692 1568 1260 S 0.0 0.5 0:00.33 bash
I don't remember it being terribly bad...
It would be interesting to have the above data on a whole buzz system
(as presumably the above is against sarge-era libraries.) Too bad you
can't debootstrap buzz :)
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
