From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jul 3 1:50:39 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002CC37B9CC for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:50:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e638oSx14956; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:50:28 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: David Greenman Cc: Bosko Milekic , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Message-ID: <20000703015027.U25571@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <200007030820.BAA09516@implode.root.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <200007030820.BAA09516@implode.root.com>; from dg@root.com on Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 01:20:15AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * David Greenman [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