On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:27 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Alan Cox (alan@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > Fork should be pretty cheap - although that depends how much memory is unshared > > by each of the resulting tasks. A smaller cleaner shell such as rc (which was > > designed for this job in plan 9) or ash might well perform better. I'm dubious > > it would be a big difference but someone can bench it. > > ash has been benchmarked. Required rooting out some bashisms from the scripts > (or just calling those specific scripts with bash), Right - Doing so (== bug fixing) is way over due. > but in any case, it didn't > make much difference. Well, depends on how things are being implemented. Some OSes wanted to avoid "bash's bloat" by using ash as /bin/sh - Had shown not to be a clever idea. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
