From owner-cvs-all Thu Jun 4 07:43:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA16553 for cvs-all-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:43:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (spinner.netplex.com.au [202.12.86.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA16545 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:43:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spinner.netplex.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8/Spinner) with ESMTP id WAA24579; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:39:22 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from peter@spinner.netplex.com.au) Message-Id: <199806041439.WAA24579@spinner.netplex.com.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: dima@best.net cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FD_SETSIZE In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Jun 1998 21:03:27 MST." <199806030403.VAA25906@burka.rdy.com> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:39:21 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Dima Ruban wrote: > Hey guys! > > -current has Subject defined to 1024, -stable - to 256. > Any objections from bumping it in -stable, so it would match > value that we have in -current? If I recall correctly, the -current select() implementation was enhanced to make better use of memory and copyin/out with large vector sizes. This has not happened with -stable, so increasing the vector size might not be an idea as it could have a [slight?] detrimental effect. I don't remember the details of the situation well enough but I am pretty sure that there was some reason why it wasn't taken across. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm Netplex Consulting To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message