On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 11:47 -0500, jamal wrote: > Your scheme for least square fit for evaluating the hash results > seems to be mostly fine for worst case lookups (I havent found a spot > where it lied about this at least). The only problem is it doesnt take > into consideration the spread as well and thus the memory utilization > aspect. So if you could find a way to also factor in the "spread" it > would be more complete and wouldnt require plots to find out how good a > hash was. > As an example - when i computed the values for 256 buckets for say > 0xfc - the result was they were equal; upon inspection - proved this > wasnt so. > perhaps that maybe a hard thing to do?
I sent my data analysis to you before reading this. Let me know if you still want it. If you do, I can do it easily enough, I think. Stephen: I am producing am awful lot of noise here for no clear result. Do you still want to be on the cc: list? Also, who runs the lartc list - do you know? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
