Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Relative speed of Bourne vs. C Shells - C Shell is faster.
Message-ID: <9552@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 28-Mar-85 15:54:46 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9552
Posted: Thu Mar 28 15:54:46 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Apr-85 00:14:54 EST
References: <216@sdcc12.UUCP> <12138@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 19

> On our VAX/780 running 4.2bsd, the Bourne script uses 25 seconds user CPU
> and 138 seconds system CPU.  The C Shell script uses 11 seconds user CPU
> and 4 seconds system CPU.  The Bourne script has to fork four processes
> for each loop iteration; the C Shell none.

??  I found the following:

	CSH script		SH script

	 7.2 user		 6.2 user
	 2.1 system		10.9 system

Of course, the extra "system" time is because you had the Bourne shell
execing "expr" in a loop, since it does not have arithmetic built in.
(The Korn shell does..)  In spite of this severely biased comparison,
the Bourne shell did not do badly; indeed the shell itself was quicker.

Our Cshell is essentially 4.2+BSD and the Bourne shell is SVR2 under
the BRL UNIX System V emulation.  Maybe you need a better Bourne shell?