On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 04:21:16PM -0500, James Carlson wrote: > Nicolas Williams writes: > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 11:26:52PM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote: > > > ... does anyone have suggestions for which scripts a compilation would > > > be usefull ? > > > > You could analyze boot performance to find the SMF start method scripts > > that delay the most dependents by the most time. Those would be the > > scripts to target first. > > I think that's assuming, of course, that the delay is due to active > shell interpretation of the script rather than the work being done by > the executables invoked by the script (or deliberate sleep(1) > invocations). Otherwise, if active shell work isn't the issue, then > that analysis won't reveal useful bits.
I figured profiling would make such things clear, but you're right that one must explicitly check for this. Simply porting to ksh93 then compiling those scripts just because it can be done seems silly. Showing that such a port and compilation would help needs to be part of the process, unless we want to mandate use of ksh93 for shell scripting in the system (though even then, there's no reason not to grandfather existing scripts). > It probably won't help you much, but I'd expect class action scripts > (used during package install/upgrade) to be where a lot of the > script-level work gets done, and even there, it's usually something > like nawk that does the heavy lifting, not /sbin/sh. And > (unfortunately for this effort), that's mostly being discarded due to > IPS. Right! Nico --
