Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:55:21 +1000 From: Q <q_dolan@yahoo.com.au> To: Andy <andy-freebsd@splashground.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some mmap observations compared to Linux 2.6/OpenBSD Message-ID: <1066910120.58538.15.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20031023112353.GD14012@splashground.de> References: <1066789354.21430.39.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> <20031022082953.GA69506@rot13.obsecurity.org> <1066816287.25609.34.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> <20031022095754.GA70026@rot13.obsecurity.org> <1066820436.25609.93.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> <20031022144043.GI55642@dan.emsphone.com> <20031022155058.GE3640@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <20031022204200.GC14012@splashground.de> <1066865808.42673.28.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> <20031023112353.GD14012@splashground.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I beg to differ. It might show linear growth, but the OpenBSD graph is definitely not O(n). Seeya...Q On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 21:23, Andy wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:36:48AM +1000, Q wrote: > > This is interesting, and demonstrates what I have been seeing, however > > OpenBSD obviously has other issues with it's mmap implementation > > entirely separate from this discussion. > > Indeed, but also note the OpenBSD graph¹ > is actually two graphs, one O(n) and One O(1). > > aha > > ¹ http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/mmap.png
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1066910120.58538.15.camel>