On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
.... I don't think it makes any sense to continue scaling at all after some point - you won't get better shorter hash chains anymore and the large hash tables actually cause problems: e.g. there are situations where we walk the complete tables and that takes longer and longer.
Logarithmic growth is _much_ slower than linear growth, so scaling becomes quite restrained after the linear/logarithmic boundary is exceeded.
Also does a 1TB machine really need bigger hash tables than a 100GB one?
Maybe - depends on what the machine is used for, I suppose.
The problem is to find out what a good boundary is.
True, and every choice involves some arbitrariness. But the arbitariness in my example is at least well contained (2 values). Anyway, I think there are good arguments for log scaling these kinds of things after some point. -- Arthur - 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
