On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@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