|
Hello,
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Roberto Nibali wrote:
> > recent 2.4 and 2.5 kernels. We need some help from math
> > perspective.
>
> I'll check on that. What kind of math problems do you have? I could
> punish my students with it :):)
We should not make conceptual errors when using these
hashes, especially when considering the random part.
> > http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/hashlvs-0.2.tgz - tools for tests
>
> Hehe, still the awk orgy :)
Of course :)
> > of course to try them yourself. My conclusion is that 2654435761
> > is better and faster but I hope we will see other results.
>
> Hey, when we chose it back then it was for a good reason. Remember how
> Wensong did the inline trick? ;).
I forgot everything :) I'm not sure we tested with the
right implementation.
> real 0m3.037s
> user 0m3.015s
> sys 0m0.000s
> Count=33030144
>
> real 0m1.953s
> user 0m1.880s
> sys 0m0.000s
> Count=33030144
>
> real 0m6.288s
> user 0m6.195s
> sys 0m0.005s
it was expected but we have to see the access times
with different loaded directors.
> I hope to find some time to test the real hash stuff in your patch.
ok, I'm going to sleep, the FNV stuff is interesting,
I suspect it will be slower but we will see the final access
times.
> Best regards,
> Roberto Nibali, ratz
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
|
