Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | lelouch11's comments login

The same argument came up in a big company, incidentally for the same use case, certificate store in a CA. This led to benchmarks, where OpenLDAP was significantly slower, like three orders of magnitudes. Databases have gotten really faster in the last couple of years while OpenLDAP has stagnated.


InnoDB is a bloated pig. No, it hasn't gotten 5 orders of magnitude faster in the past 10 years. http://www.lmdb.tech/bench/memcache/

And the overhead of SQL processing vs LDAP protocol hasn't improved any either.

You're spouting lies.


Got a link to a report on that?

OpenLDAP serves queries at line rate on multi-gigabit NICs, with latencies indistinguishable from ping RTTs. Other databases aren't even close.


Actually that book is paywalled now. It's been somewhat of a controversy that people contributed to the book thinking it was a community resource but now it's unavailable.


wow. although the last time he updated the (singular) username and password was october. i think people could just ask around for it.

still, controversial indeed.

Weirdly, the book itself says:

> Q: May I print this book / use it for teaching? > A: Of course! That’s why the book is licensed under the Creative Commons license (CC BY-SA 4.0)

So it would be legal for anyone else to host this.



I have a similar situation.

The issue here is that the apt update changes firefox program files underneath it which needs a restart. Afaik, using the mozilla release directly is the only solution for this where the program files are changed only after exit.

Edit: This has become more common nowadays due to multiple point releases close to each other, to fix some important bug.


Is there a resource available online? Would love to try implementing this.


This is the most complete description I found (I don't have my original one sorry), in french also http://oxyde.free.fr/projets/vm.html I can provide a list of champions source code (asm) that was provided to test all of that. Also found this project that looks quite complete https://github.com/ClementBolin/Corewar_Epitech



Hi, I had a general question regarding intrinsics which you might be able to answer. `llvm.stacksave` and `llvm.stackrestore` are used for implementing VLAs in C (to my knowledge). Is it required to emit those for variable size allocas, or could you skip them? If skipping is possible, how is the case handled when the basic block does not post-dominate an exit block?


AFAIK, LLVM doesn’t actually require those intrinsics for VLAs — the `alloca` instruction can take a non-immediate for the stack object size. I can’t remember off the top of my head whether I’ve seen LLVM consistently include the intrinsics as well.

As for the dominator case: it’s possible that it does need them then. But for a really trivial VLA (like at the level of the function’s frame) it shouldn’t.


The only case I recall seeing @llvm.{stacksave,stackrestore} use was when LLVM inlined a function with a non-entry-block-alloca into another function, where the intrinsics got added immediately before/after what used to be the function call.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: