On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Treker wrote: >That reminds me, Circle is one of the most resource-guzzling MUDs I've seen. Depends on how big your world is. >This does not surprise me, as Circle IS a code BASE for people to use and >expand. However, is memory / cpu optimization being planned (ie: new, >faster, less-CPU-hogging search algorithms, etc) for future patches or >versions? Optimize for what? CPU/Memory are not always mutually exclusive optimization. If you want the all-cpu/little-memory approach, try my little patch I can't current find that shoves all room message/title accesses into a file. In the meantime, this is related: http://www.circlemud.org/pub/CircleMUD/contrib/code/desc_load.tar.gz >Binary searches could be more efficient in some cases. Which? (Besides command list.) >Three out of the five coders I've spoken to in the past month switched to >ROM because it is less requiring of their systems, and I quote (not my >words!) "Faster"... Considering a 386 with 4MB of RAM is what CircleMUD originally could run on, I don't expect a 600MHz Pentium III with 256 MB of RAM would care a lot. Now, what *you* do to the code could affect it adversely. It could also be you're running a lot more of something than we expected. If there are easy trade-offs, we can do those but memory vs. CPU isn't always clear-cut. -- George Greer greerga@circlemud.org +------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: | | http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | +------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/01 PDT