On Thursday 18 February 2010 12:04:31 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:28 AM, xor <xor at gmx.li> wrote: > > On Thursday 18 February 2010 09:26:55 Daniel Cheng wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Do we still concern memory usage? > >> I am seeing the memory usage of freenet climb higher and higher in > >> recently release. > >> It is no longer possible to run a node in an 128m memory box. > >> > >> With 3c02c397bfea7418d5d311ba481c3b3c7df96e2e, may I say the > >> promise/envision of low-memory/embeded usage dead/failed ? > > > > Incrementing a 4 KiB buffer to 32 KiB won't hurt anyone, will it? > > If the JVM is smart then it will usually even use the stack for this. > > > > - I incremented it because very small buffers usually cause low throughput > > especially when used with harddisks. > > > > We can meet in the middle at 16 KiB if you really have a problem with it :) > > Well, is there an actual performance improvement? > > Does there have to be a fixed size, or can it depend on the global memory > limit?
Given that this is in FileUtil I doubt very much that it is a problem. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100218/d57ea4ee/attachment.pgp>
