Yeah, saw that too. Wonderfull improvement!
Great job Charles, thanks!!
C
On Sunday 01 October 2006 15:57, jef_e wrote:
> Charles Kerr wrote:
> > I'm running out of tricks, though. :)
>
> Just wanted to toss in my last minute 2 cents on 0.114 and the patch
> before I move on to 0.115. I use Gigan
Charles Kerr wrote:
> I'm running out of tricks, though. :)
Just wanted to toss in my last minute 2 cents on 0.114 and the patch
before I move on to 0.115. I use Giganews and decided to let 0.114 pull
in all 90 days worth of headers for alt.binaries.dvd just to see what
happened. I hadn't loaded
Douglas Bollinger wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:40:39 -0500
Charles Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358077 now has a
third draft of the patch which digs a little deeper for memory.
Here's a top snapshot of 0.114 (pan-old) vs. 0.114 + patch #3 (pan-new)
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:40:39 -0500
Charles Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358077 now has a
> third draft of the patch which digs a little deeper for memory.
>
> Here's a top snapshot of 0.114 (pan-old) vs. 0.114 + patch #3 (pan-new).
> Both were starte
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358077 now has a
third draft of the patch which digs a little deeper for memory.
Here's a top snapshot of 0.114 (pan-old) vs. 0.114 + patch #3 (pan-new).
Both were started and then loaded a 30 day snapshot of a.b.dvd.
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES S
