Re: 4k read buffer is too small

... I kindly disagree that 4k is enough for everybody.

I don't mean to be difficult but that's not what graff said. What he said was 4k a compromise that didn't adversely impact the implementation of perl for majority of users. I'm sure the 4k number is tied to the 'small' sbrk request size, so I'm think increasing beyond 4k is going to mean tweeking malloc. Perhaps also increasing the number of buffers used in parsing an input stream into line chunks.

Now for one of those dumb, it's-not-my-budget, questions: Why not buy ( or ask for) a bigger local disk? 8GB is small now days.

s//----->\t/;$~="JAPH";s//\r<$~~/;{s|~$~-|-~$~|||s |-$~~|$~~-|||s,<$~~,<~$~,,s,~$~>,$~~>,, $|=1,select$,,$,,$,,1e-1;print;redo}

Comment on Re: 4k read buffer is too small

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: 4k read buffer is too small by voeckler (Sexton) on Jun 17, 2008 at 03:29 UTC
Concerning bying new disks: I was trying to make an example with numbers with the 8GB case, to show that it is already doing bad things to the NFS server. In actuality, the local disks on our machines permit 60 GB scratch each. However, some rule files are 123 GB (and 500 mio lines).	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom