[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Simon Goldschmidt
Subject: [lwip-devel] [task #6827] etharp could need some tuning
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:45:20 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv: Gecko/20070309 Firefox/

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

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

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:


  Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]