Re: ten thousand small processes

From: Bakul Shah (bakul_at_bitblocks.com)
Date: 06/27/03

  • Next message: Pedram Nimreezi: "Re: ten thousand small processes" 
    To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:12:17 -0700

    > > Instead of complaining about wasting 78 megabytes and arguing
    > > about why various proposed solutions fall short and why your
    > > way is the best, why don't you come up with a patch that
    > > saves space for small programs?
    >
    > Funny. Seems to me that I keep making concrete suggestions---including a
    > detailed proposal for giving more space to malloc()---and the answer is
    > consistently ``We really don't care about per-process overhead.'' What's
    > the benefit of a patch for people who don't even see the problem?

    If after repeated suggestions people are not "getting it",
    the reason is usually *not* apathy. Either you are not
    explaining well or your starting assumptions are different.
    But show me the code! If I like it I'll use it. "Build it
    and they will come" -- you should be familiar with that! If
    enough people like it, may be it will get incorporated in
    some form. May be.
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Pedram Nimreezi: "Re: ten thousand small processes"

    Relevant Pages