On 3/4/12 8:33 PM, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote: > I don't know of any technique that could further reduce it, aside from > profiling the memory usage and reporting back to this list. If your > profiling turned up some "low hanging fruit" of wasted memory, then > perhaps some Tahoe-LAFS developer would be motivated to try reducing > that.
The storage-server side of Tahoe doesn't really do that much, so I'd be pleased as punch if it could fit into 10 or 20MB. To do that, I think we'd need to avoid loading all of the code when we're not running a client (I'm thinking zfec, pycryptopp, twisted.web, conch, ftp/sftp). Switching away from foolscap (to HTTP) might help too (or might hurt, if the crypto needed to replace it is actually bigger). cheers, -Brian _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
