Tim Wilson-Brown - teor writes:
> [ text/plain ]
>
>> On 20 Apr 2016, at 07:22, David Goulet wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Apr (13:18:25), George Kadianakis wrote:
>>> Tim Wilson-Brown - teor writes:
>>>
[ text/plain ]
> On 16 Apr 2016, at 05:47, David Goulet wrote:
>
> Hi!
> On 20 Apr 2016, at 07:22, David Goulet wrote:
>
> On 18 Apr (13:18:25), George Kadianakis wrote:
>> Tim Wilson-Brown - teor writes:
>>
>>> [ text/plain ]
>>>
On 16 Apr 2016, at 05:47, David Goulet wrote:
Hi!
(For the following, I'm only talking about HS directory
On 18 Apr (13:18:25), George Kadianakis wrote:
> Tim Wilson-Brown - teor writes:
>
> > [ text/plain ]
> >
> >> On 16 Apr 2016, at 05:47, David Goulet wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> (For the following, I'm only talking about HS directory.)
> >>
> >> Here is my conundrum. I was working on plugg
Tim Wilson-Brown - teor writes:
> [ text/plain ]
>
>> On 16 Apr 2016, at 05:47, David Goulet wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> (For the following, I'm only talking about HS directory.)
>>
>> Here is my conundrum. I was working on plugging the new cache for proposal
>> 224
>> into our OOM. I stumbled up
On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 20:30:29 +0300
s7r wrote:
> I agree that teor's O(Kn) is the best approach from performance (no
> additional memory allocations), simplicity and efficacy point of view.
> O(Kn) algorithm will clear the entries only based on their expiration
> time, it won't care to clean the v2
Hello,
On 4/16/2016 4:11 PM, David Goulet wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>
>> A third alternative is that we can iterate through each time period:
>> Set K to the oldest expected descriptor age in hours, minus 1 hour
>> Deallocate all entries from Cache A that are older than K hours
>> Deallocate all entries
On 16 Apr (12:49:44), Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
>
> > On 16 Apr 2016, at 05:47, David Goulet wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > (For the following, I'm only talking about HS directory.)
> >
> > Here is my conundrum. I was working on plugging the new cache for proposal
> > 224
> > into our OOM. I
> On 16 Apr 2016, at 05:47, David Goulet wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> (For the following, I'm only talking about HS directory.)
>
> Here is my conundrum. I was working on plugging the new cache for proposal 224
> into our OOM. I stumbled upon a fun problem.
>
> We plan to have both current and new HS p
Hi!
(For the following, I'm only talking about HS directory.)
Here is my conundrum. I was working on plugging the new cache for proposal 224
into our OOM. I stumbled upon a fun problem.
We plan to have both current and new HS protocol in parallel. This means two
caches for both version 2 (curren
