Nicolas Williams wrote: > 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.
Erm... plain Bourne shell scripts shouldn't require porting to ksh93 - they should run out-of-the-box (excluding four known incompatibilties (which usually do not show-up in normal scripts)). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
