On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 20:52, Marc Espie wrote: > Sorry, badly phrased reply. I didn't mean to imply it was a bad idea, but > you didn't explain at all why 4, and not 3 or 6, or 42 ? If it's good with > 4, it ought to be better with more, right ? any data point or rationale for > choosing 4 ?
The bigger it goes, the more memory you burn. 4 seemed a reasonably small choice where you aren't likely to even notice. It could perhaps scale with the size of the chunk, but that's further complication.
