On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Just one more thing: as I mentioned in my rather long mail, blame
>> would benefit the most from my optimization if the server were fast
>> enough. So if anyone could spare some review cycles (ok, I know they
>> are scarce these days), reviewing Stefan^2's integrate-cache-membuffer
>> branch would really help my cause as well ...
>
> Yeah, just a question of tuits. If you've reviewed the branch,
> posting your conclusions here would be a great contribution. Speaking
> for myself, I feel you've got more experience in some areas of that
> branch than I do. :)
>
> (Apologies if you've already done so, and I've missed it.)
No, sorry, I haven't either. I have compiled and run it (well actually
the performance branch itself, not the integrate-cache-membuffer
branch). But I haven't looked at the source code.
Mmmm, tuits, I wish I had some spare ones lying around :-). Who knows,
maybe I'll find some ...
Cheers,
--
Johan
Received on 2010-10-08 23:11:03 CEST