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