Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 30th Sep 2003 05:20 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



<blockquote>I cannot believe that moving things out of relatively slow bash scripts and into a lower-level, compiled language wouldn't make quite a bit of difference in speed.</blockquote>It's not bash or the scripts that are slow at all, it's the fact that each init script spawns a program that has to do some work, and that work takes time (not all of which is CPU time). Parallelizing startup scripts, and allowing them to run in the background after the login prompt/XDM, would provide a *huge* savings in waiting time. But, so far nobody has come up with a bulletproof way to manage dependencies of startup scripts so that they can be parallelized and backgrounded.