-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bernhard Auzinger wrote: > > Yes you are completely right, but that is not the point I wanted to make. I > just think avoiding any unnecessary disk access is the best solution as long > there will be the bottleneck. >
Agreed - spending more money on RAM/CPU/disk/etc will often improve performance more than better-using the resources already available, but at some point you decide to stop spending money and at that point you have to work with what you already have... :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGs5SlG4/rWKZmVWkRAqcvAKCMXqZYdPCjuQuMoVWausYS0AV5/QCfWpGY UnLBMLnSAlsz/4Id92TLZek= =hG8y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
