| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: (diet-)FIB alternative fib_hlist.c |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | 5 May 2005 20:07:43 +0200 |
| Date: | Thu, 5 May 2005 20:07:43 +0200 |
| Cc: | Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jens.Laas@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1115297370.7680.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| References: | <17016.62444.34282.625407@robur.slu.se> <m1zmvax2cx.fsf@muc.de> <1115297370.7680.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
> Great patch it is - but why do you say "99.999% of all users" feel they > would love this? Clearly perfomance at the low routes area is not What I wanted to say is that 99.999% of all users dont need the cisco grade BGP4 capable standard FIB, it is a just wasted complexity and memory for them. > something that is a huge difference against standard fib. And you suffer > miserably at latge route size. > Is it memory consumption you are thinking of? Yes, and complexity. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Mystery packet killing tg3, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Mystery packet killing tg3, Peter Buckingham |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: (diet-)FIB alternative fib_hlist.c, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: (diet-)FIB alternative fib_hlist.c, Andre Tomt |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |