On Wed, 2006-22-03 at 09:01 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 14:39 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Back to the original question...
What should the iproute2 utilities contain?
Does it have to have the utsname hack to work?
Hi Stephen,
I think the resolution
On Tue, 2006-21-03 at 09:35 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
Jeezz, that pisses me off. What is it with the bloody
internet? This isn't the first time this has happened.
The page you are accessing is in the US for gods sake.
It seems like the internet has walled off islands on
occasions. I
Back to the original question...
What should the iproute2 utilities contain?
Does it have to have the utsname hack to work?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 09:57 -0500, jamal wrote:
I accessed them - unfortunately, though i am trying to, I dont
see anything outstanding that would justify any changes to the
hash. Lets just drop this. We can talk about other things if you want.
If you still are not convinced, then I don't see
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 14:39 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Back to the original question...
What should the iproute2 utilities contain?
Does it have to have the utsname hack to work?
Hi Stephen,
I think the resolution was:
- No to the utsname hack. Ergo the tc sample clause
On Mon, 2006-20-03 at 14:46 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 11:32 -0500, jamal wrote:
From what I can see, you are not testing a real data
set here. Is that the case?
Its a worst case scenario test setup - You lookup at all possible data
values.
Normally it is the best
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 10:00 -0500, jamal wrote:
I have to say i am scratching my head - now that i was forced to run the
tests - to see if there is infact a scenario where you could show 2.4 to
be better...
So that is the underlying reason you are resisting -
you just can't see that it could
Took off stoopid lartc. Please dont cc that list again since i keep
forgetting to remove it in my responses.
I only did the 8 bit test - I may go back and do the 16 bit
but now i am almost sure that the majority of the results will produce
similar results. So i dont know if i should bother.
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 11:32 -0500, jamal wrote:
Conclusion
--
Other than fixing a bug, then new hash is at least equal to the old
hash in about 16% of the cases and better in the rest(80% of the
time).
This is true in the case of both memory abuse and worst case lookups.
I
