> It might be worth experimenting with posix_fadvise. I don't think
> implementing our own i/o scheduler or rate-limiter would be as good a
> use of time (it sounds like you're on that page too).
Ok. And yes I mostly agree, although I can imagine circumstances where
a pretty simple rate limiter m
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Terje Marthinussen
wrote:
> 1. There is just too much code and too many "layers" involved when hasNext
> is called. I suspect this requires a re-design and the
> google/common-collections may have to be thrown out. This would seem to be a
> pretty critical area of
