Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:50:28 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: David Greenman <dg@root.com> Cc: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Message-ID: <20000703015027.U25571@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <200007030820.BAA09516@implode.root.com>; from dg@root.com on Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 01:20:15AM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007030136320.2431-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com> <200007030820.BAA09516@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* David Greenman <dg@root.com> [000703 01:32] wrote: .. response to mbuf rewrite > I'm not trying to 'frown upon evolution', unless the particular form of > evolution is to make the software worse than it was. I *can* be convinced > that your proposed changes are a good thing and I'm asking you to step up > to the plate and prove it. I agree, we can not afford to sacrifice performance for memory footprint any longer, it's just not realistic. If a subsystem needs X amount of memory at some point in time it will need it again. Sacrificing performance to fix the small occurances where this is not the case is not worth it, the general case will always be there and will be more important. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000703015027.U25571>