Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:32:13 -0700 From: Pedram Nimreezi <Support@Netflag.Net> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>, "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ten thousand small processes Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627092330.020dc020@pop.dc3.adelphia.net> In-Reply-To: <200306271612.h5RGCHPF029635@bitblocks.com> References: <Your message of "26 Jun 2003 21:26:59 -0000." <20030626212659.51367.qmail@cr.yp.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Far be it for me to disregard anything Professor Bernstein suggests
but Bakul does have an extremely good point and I feel that just as
you proved BIND wrong in many ways with the advent of DJBDNS.
So you should in proving this point which seems to of been the cause
of an almost outrageous malloc and memory argument.
I would also agree with Mr. Mini, I love saying that, that maybe
the profoundness of your concepts are mitigated by this University-like
language which you fail to realize some of the best coders in the world
do not understand, like the Portuguese for instance. I have a friend named
Manuel (Whose rather famous in the PHP community and whose last name
I won't divulge), that even though his programming is very robust his error
messages
show that his English is rather poor. I feel that even though this is an
English
speaking mailing list it does give me much joy watching the elites of
computer science
bicker to no end. The rest of the world should be able to enjoy this free
spectacle as well.
I think I lost my point just there.. but here's a simple if not rhetoric
suggestion that will
undoubtedly cause me more boredom... and that is: More consensus less cursing.
At 09:12 AM 6/27/2003 -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > > 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"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.2.0.9.2.20030627092330.020dc020>