> 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.
Hmm, that's cool, I'll have to actually check that out, any
idea about vs. Solaris?
> > 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.
Is that a 'sh' clone or something completely different? Actually
you don't have to bother w/ answering that if you don't want to, I'm
gonna go check out man pages. :)
> > 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.
I agree, though speeding up fork/exec/exit might speed up a
web server some as it tends to do that alot IIRC.. :)
Stephen
-
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/