[lwip-devel] [task #6827] etharp could need some tuning

[Simon Goldschmidt]

Follow-up Comment #11, task #6827 (project lwip):

> Replacing the simple table with a hash table: not so obviously good for
lwIP.

That depends:

> Undoubtedly faster (and so more lightweight on the CPU)

Only if generating the hash is faster than scanning the table, so only for
big tables.

> but more memory required (and so less lightweight on the memory).

OK, but if you need ~100 entries, the table is also big. I'd say if  someone
wants many entries, a hash table is still a good idea.

Nevertheless, this would of course be an option since for 10 entries, the
table & one-entry-cache is still the best solution. Also my first optional
implementation would be the sorting list, not the hash-table. I think that
this is best for sizes between 20 and 50 with some concurrent connections.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?6827>

_______________________________________________
  Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/