On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:27 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Alan Cox (alan(a)redhat.com) 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