Re: AVL and hash in memory management

Chris Wedgwood (chris@cybernet.co.nz)
Sun, 20 Sep 1998 15:32:15 +1200


On Sat, Sep 19, 1998 at 11:14:21PM -0400, sfrost@ns.snowman.net wrote:

> It's not, and I wasn't saying it was, I suppose I should have made
> that point more obvious, starting sub-shells under any OS I've come
> accross so far is slow, would love to see Linux's run alot faster
> than Solaris's though, would give me another thing to tell
> management about how Linux is better... :)

Starting bash under SunOS 4.1.3 vs Linux on the same box (hypersparc
90, UP) - linux is much faster. I've not looked at why.

> That is defintely something else to look at, also I've seen alot of
> shell scripts that uses '#!/bin/sh', but are really for bash and
> won't run under the 'sh' found on other systems, would be better if
> they did '#!/bin/bash', or that 'sh' not just be 'bash', but that's
> all something for the distributors really...

`ash' is available is much faster in many cases.

> Hmmm, configure scripts are just about an everyday thing to me, as
> the admin I get to run around upgrading all the software, after
> testing it and making sure it doesn't break anything else and other
> things.

Oh - they are for me to, but in total, I doubt I would spend more
that 0.5% of my CPU time running them compared to a squid or
somesuch.

For me, a 10% speed increase in network IO or disk IO compared to a
300% increase in running ./configure is more worth while.

-cw

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/