Subject: Re: New hash algorithm - FNV - for use in the kernel
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/27/2001 23:04:59
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 12:31:29AM -0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > But there is no reason why it shouldn't optimise for what it expects to
> > > see most often....
> > And what would that be? Solaris? NetBSD? Tru64?
> This is NFS, all the implementations are clones of each other,
Um, that's nonsense. There are numerous distinct NFS code bases: Sun's,
which has changed significantly over time; the ancient Wisconsin code that
was available for 4.3BSD; the Macklem implementation in its NFSv2
incarnation from Berkeley net/2; the Macklem implementation in its NFSv3
incarnation, which behaves significantly differently in some ways than its
ancestor; other Unix vendors' code such as SGI's and IBM's which is
occasionally updated from the Sun "trunk" but has diverged greatly over
time; the Linux implementation, which is probably the most alien and evil,
in its user-space incarnation, its version 2 kernel incarnation, and its
version 3 kernel incarnation, amd's user-space incarnation, and NetApp's
I'm sure I've missed some.
> I'd guess that there is little difference between the implementations.
Again, that's not really true.