From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Subject: Re: patricia tries vs. hash for routing? Date: 28 Oct 2003 13:29:54 GMT Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: References: <20030919214837.GA3012@sirius.cs.pdx.edu> <20030919233730.75969de6.davem@redhat.com> Return-path: To: netdev@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org In article <20030919233730.75969de6.davem@redhat.com>, David S. Miller wrote: | On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:48:37 -0700 | Kristen Carlson wrote: | | > I was looking through some very old mail list discussions (1996!) on this | > topic, and the feeling then was that the code was optimal for < 60,000 routes. | > Given that much has happened since then, is it still a fair assumption to say | > that the linux routing algorithm is optimized for < 60,000 routes, but a | > more BSD-like algorithm works better for > 60,000 routes? | | That's not true at all, the current code can handle many more than | 60,000 routes. I don't think "optimized for" meant it wouldn't handle more, just that performance would degrade. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.