Dash is fast and small - that is one of the reasons it was chosen to replace nash in the Dracut project rework of initrd in Fedora 12.
-- Finnbarr From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [ast-users] dash faster than ksh93? Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:52:06 +0200 CC: If I read the code on the linked page correctly, all it does is firing up thousands of *empty* shells scripts through the interpreter #! syntax. So what the guy measure here seems to be how fast a shell instance is loaded. No consider the sizes of the executables; on my box it is: -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 934336 2010-04-19 04:16 /bin/bash -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 101608 2010-04-02 01:29 /bin/dash -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1322432 2009-06-08 15:56 /bin/ksh93 And compare the binaries' sizes with the "benchmark" results, e.g.: bash 10000 0m26.19s dash 10000 0m8.62s ksh 10000 0m27.49s A completely different issue is, how efficient the respective shell language is implemented. The program on that page doesn't seem to benchmark anything like that. Janis > Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:10:34 +0200 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ast-users] dash faster than ksh93? > > Can anyone confirm the benchmarks in > http://poisonbit.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/choose-a-shell-a-k-a-whatre-u-calling-a-hundred-times/? > I find it hard to believe that the dash shell outperforms ksh93. > > Josh > _______________________________________________ > ast-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users _______________________________________________ ast-users mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
_______________________________________________ ast-users mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
