Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*patricia\s+tries\s+vs\.\s+hash\s+for\s+routing\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*patricia\s+tries\s+vs\.\s+hash\s+for\s+routing\?\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. ipchains related (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: 28 Oct 2003 13:29:54 GMT; I sent yesterday to linux-kernel. I understand I should have sent it there right away. Please note, that another instance of (probably) the same problem on an; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00638.html (7,904 bytes)
2. patricia tries vs. hash for routing? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman); Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:29:10 -0700; I'm wondering if somebody has already written a patch that replaces the current routing algorithm (hash) with one that is based on a trie based algorithm? I'm also wondering if anybody has done any; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg00548.html (7,156 bytes)
3. Re: patricia tries vs. hash for routing? (score: 1): Author: nk Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:17:43 -0700; Patricia trees aren't going to help, most of the overhead in the routing lookup is in implementing the various fancy features our routing code supports. For example, equal cost multi-pathing and othe; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg00556.html (8,172 bytes)
4. Re: patricia tries vs. hash for routing? (score: 1): Author: <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:48:37 -0700; I was looking through some very old mail list discussions (1996!) on this topic, and the feeling then was that the code was optimal for < 60,000 routes. Given that much has happened since then, is it; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg00572.html (7,417 bytes)
5. Re: patricia tries vs. hash for routing? (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:37:30 -0700; That's not true at all, the current code can handle many more than 60,000 routes. Don't speak with abstract claims that bear no content, do your own experiments with a properly configured system and; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg00576.html (8,118 bytes)
6. Re: patricia tries vs. hash for routing? (score: 1): Author: davidsen@xxxxxxx (bill davidsen); Date: 28 Oct 2003 13:29:54 GMT; routes. say I don't think "optimized for" meant it wouldn't handle more, just that performance would degrade. -- bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things wit; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg01380.html (8,026 bytes)
7. patricia tries vs. hash for routing? (score: 1): Author: Kristen Carlson <kristenc@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:29:10 -0700; Hi, I'm wondering if somebody has already written a patch that replaces the current routing algorithm (hash) with one that is based on a trie based algorithm? I'm also wondering if anybody has done a; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg01477.html (7,156 bytes)
8. Re: patricia tries vs. hash for routing? (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:17:43 -0700; Patricia trees aren't going to help, most of the overhead in the routing lookup is in implementing the various fancy features our routing code supports. For example, equal cost multi-pathing and othe; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg01485.html (8,232 bytes)
9. Re: patricia tries vs. hash for routing? (score: 1): Author: Kristen Carlson <kristenc@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:48:37 -0700; I was looking through some very old mail list discussions (1996!) on this topic, and the feeling then was that the code was optimal for < 60,000 routes. Given that much has happened since then, is it; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg01501.html (7,417 bytes)
10. Re: patricia tries vs. hash for routing? (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:37:30 -0700; That's not true at all, the current code can handle many more than 60,000 routes. Don't speak with abstract claims that bear no content, do your own experiments with a properly configured system and; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg01505.html (8,176 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]