Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/20/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dan's OP was 'use dash to speed up booting' (over-compressed
>> over-simplification). I said you'd do better by parallelising the
>> service start ups. Nothing here that says it's at all worth while to do
>> either really. It's an intellectual exercise!
>
> I never said that it was going to make a significant difference, but
> it that if you're going to spawn a bunch of shell scripts, it would
> make sense to use the interpreter that's 1/6 the size of the other.
>
> $ time { for (( i = 0; i < 20; i++ )); do /bin/bash -c ":"; done; }
>
> real 0m0.034s
> user 0m0.014s
> sys 0m0.020s
> $ time { for (( i = 0; i < 20; i++ )); do /bin/dash -c ":"; done; }
>
> real 0m0.015s
> user 0m0.004s
> sys 0m0.011s
OK, let's analyze this. 20 invocations. 19 ms difference. Less than 1
ms wall clock time per invocation. How much time did you want to put in
on this? :)
The memory space is generally not significant either because only one
copy of the code is in memory at any time. The difference would be data
space.
What *would* be useful, IMO, is to have a copy of the messages that the
bootscripts or subordinate programs write, including errors, sent to a
boot log.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
