On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 15:29, William Burns mudokon...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I wanted to discuss what I would say as dubious
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 15:29, William Burns mudokon...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I wanted to discuss what I would say as dubious
I'm all for simplification, assuming that this will deliver better
reliability and easier maintenance, but let's not forget that some
entries might be actually large.
Saving a couple of transfers might be a pointless complexity for our
usual small-key tests but maybe it's an interesting feature
On 28 Jan 2014, at 15:29, William Burns mudokon...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I wanted to discuss what I would say as dubious benefit of L1OnRehash
especially compared to the benefits it provide.
L1OnRehash is used to retain a value by moving a previously owned
value into the L1
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 15:29, William Burns mudokon...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I wanted to discuss what I would say as dubious benefit of L1OnRehash
especially compared to the benefits it provide.
Hello everyone,
I wanted to discuss what I would say as dubious benefit of L1OnRehash
especially compared to the benefits it provide.
L1OnRehash is used to retain a value by moving a previously owned
value into the L1 when a rehash occurs and this node no longer owns
that value Also any current
