Yeah, base of 30 then >>3, etc. It may be that, because most of the
systems I work on were IO bound then had solid state disks added, that
revisiting the calls to malloc made sense. I arbitrarily changed the
algorithm a bit to base=128, then >>2 plus n on subsequent allocations.
It was mostly in the mail headers and return paths that I saw repeated
malloc calls. The changed algorithm cut malloc calls by about 10% as I
recall. 10% isn't a big deal, but if you are now processor bound (with
prestoserv or solid state devices ...).
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Daemeon Reiydelle writes:
> > While on the subject of stralloc'ed structures: have you thought of
> > setting them to a fairly large value (e.g. 256 or 512 or the requeste
> > value, whichever is larger) when allocated?
>
> 30.
>
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
--
Daemeon Reiydelle
Systems Engineer, Anthropomorphics Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
