On 12 Dec 2013, at 02:41, Ingo Walz wrote:
> So socache with shared memory (shmcb) is the way you would suggest?
How important is the sharing in your case? If it's just about performance,
you may be better-off accepting that each process will repeat the work
of populating the hash, if that's a
Am 12.12.2013 11:27, schrieb Nick Kew:
On 12 Dec 2013, at 02:41, Ingo Walz wrote:
So socache with shared memory (shmcb) is the way you would suggest?
How important is the sharing in your case? If it's just about performance,
you may be better-off accepting that each process will repeat the wo
