Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Randall Stewart wrote: > > >>Hmm.. I would think 512b and 1K will not show any >>improvement.. since they would probably end up either >>in an mbuf chain.. or a single 2k (or maybe 4k) cluster.. > > > I know, I just want to make sure that it doesn't somehow cause performance > loss for those cases! > > >>In fact I have always thought we should: >> >>a) have no data portion in an mbuf.. just pointers i.e. always >> an EXT >> >>b) Have a 256/512 and 1k cluster too.. Hmm.. I could do that.. maybe I will when my plate clears off a bit.. but then again.. that may be never :-0 R > > > Implement and benchmark it. :) > > Mike "Silby" Silbersack > -- Randall Stewart NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc. 803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222 (cell)Received on Fri Sep 29 2006 - 19:32:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:00 UTC