From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Sep 1 2:22:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD7B14D7C for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 02:20:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com) by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11M6YR-00030D-00; Wed, 01 Sep 1999 11:19:43 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Jaye Mathisen Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Minor patches to pwd_mkdb In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Sep 1999 02:08:59 MST." Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 11:19:43 +0200 Message-ID: <11544.936177583@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 02:08:59 MST, Jaye Mathisen wrote: > But I'm not saying change the default, leave it at 2, I just think > it should be easy to tweak, such that it is persistent across source > updates. I think what both Mike and I are suggesting is that a magic value for which the ideal setting varies should be variable. Thus, a compile-time option is not ideal. Either it needs to be a run-time option, or the software should determine a good cache size on its own. The run-time option idea is silly if the software can do it without human help. In this case, I think we're all agreed that it can. > How many machines have many thousands of users, but a couple MB's of > memory for a few seconds is a premium? Actually, it's the machines that have thousands of users that tend to get used a lot. *grin* Basically, what neither of us has said is "well done, you've spotted a part of FreeBSD that could be improved and suggested one way of doing it". We're just suggesting a better improvement. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message