On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Julian Elischer wrote:
Hi,
If I can get some confirmation of this by others then
the next step would be to simply remove the VIMAGE_GLOBALS option
and all the global variables it covers.
At least that's what seems next to me..
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Julian Elischer wrote:
Hi,
If I can get some confirmation of this by others then
the next step would be to simply remove the VIMAGE_GLOBALS option
and all the global variables it covers.
At least that's what seems next to me..
no, the next step is to bring in the beaf (l
Julian Elischer wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
anyone who has commands and args for their favourite
thing the'd like me to test... send it in..
so far using ttcp I have seem no measureable difference.
but I have more tests to do of course..
for example throughput with small packets with ttcp
Julian Elischer wrote:
anyone who has commands and args for their favourite
thing the'd like me to test... send it in..
so far using ttcp I have seem no measureable difference.
but I have more tests to do of course..
for example throughput with small packets with ttcp (KB/Sec)
x VIMAGE
anyone who has commands and args for their favourite
thing the'd like me to test... send it in..
so far using ttcp I have seem no measureable difference.
but I have more tests to do of course..
for example throughput with small packets with ttcp (KB/Sec)
x VIMAGE_GLOBALS
+ NO_VIMAGE_GLO
