less Idle time with busybox ash as bash vs bash

James Hanley jhanley at dgtlrift.com
Thu Sep 6 22:54:09 UTC 2018


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 bash.

Is this expected behavior?

-Jim

> On Aug 31, 2018, at 2:06 PM, James Hanley <jhanley at dgtlrift.com> 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 expecting that busybox would (itself) take up more time simply
> because of vfork, but yield more CPU time overall since there would be
> less overhead as a number of the applets would not fork&exec.
> 
> Is this expected behavior that busybox overall yields less idle time?
> -Jim


More information about the busybox mailing list