On Sunday 30 July 2006 18:57, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Juiceman <juiceman69 at gmail.com> [2006-07-30 17:19:04]: > > > On 7/30/06, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) <nextgens at freenetproject.org> > > wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > > Would someone mind if I remove "pentium" optimized native big > > > integer libraries ? what about pentiummmx too ? > > > The asset beeing a space gain. > > > > > > Atm, we have : none, pentium, pentiummmx, pentium2, pentium3, > > > pentium4, k6, k62, k63, athlon, x86_64 > > > > > > IMHO, freenet 0.7 can't run "well enough" on a pentium. I'm > > > running a node on a pentium2 and I'm already short of resources. > > > > > > I've got one other idea: what about distributing > > > YetAnotherJarfile with only optimized libraries ? > > > > > > one for windows, one for linux (half space gain) > > > or one per processor type (including both linux and win32 libs : > > > big space gain) > > > > > > any thought ? > > > > > > > Honestly, I think this is more work than it is worth. Freenet.jar is > > half the size of the freenet-ext.jar but is downloaded dozen's of > > times more often. In the big picture this is a small percentage of > > the bandwidth. Our target audiance is broadband users to which 1 > > extra megabyte once in a great while is not an issue. Also, I think > > this will lead to possible support and configuration issues if users > > get the wrong .jar's or mess around trying for better performance from > > different files, > > > > I would much rather see the energy spent making the nodeupdater detect > > new versions amd update the freenet-ext.jar file in-Freenet. My 2 > > cents. > > The problem is that many people aren't using update-over-freenet but the > mirrors.
Even then they download the .ext very seldomly. Think that there is nothing to gain (except complexitity) by splitting this jar. Thanks Ed Tomlinson
