Re: less Idle time with busybox ash as bash vs bash

In Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 8:11 PM James Hanley 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

Re: less Idle time with busybox ash as bash vs bash

Busybox utilities are written in whatever way uses the fewest bytes.  Most standard utilities are optimized for speed.  Sometimes the reduced footprint of busybox can offset the lack of speed optimization because it can remain in disk cache or processor cache.  And sometimes not. If your bash

Re: less Idle time with busybox ash as bash vs bash

Bash has some built-in too. Sam On 31 Aug 2018 19:11, "James Hanley" 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 >

Re: less Idle time with busybox ash as bash vs bash

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

less Idle time with busybox ash as bash vs bash

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