To be clear - when we run the same script under bash vs busybox ash as bash - bash yields 10% more idle time to the system. I assumed that the fork/exec of all the underlying utilities (test etc) compared to the vfork or function calls in busybox would yield better results (not worse) then bash.
Is this expected behavior? -Jim > On Aug 31, 2018, at 2:06 PM, James Hanley <[email protected]> wrote: > > We had some bash scripts that we converted to use busybox ash as bash > (removed any array constructs) and when comparing the two scripts - it > seems that running them under busybox yields less idle time compared > to bash. > > I was expecting that busybox would (itself) take up more time simply > because of vfork, but yield more CPU time overall since there would be > less overhead as a number of the applets would not fork&exec. > > Is this expected behavior that busybox overall yields less idle time? > -Jim _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
