So, making sure I'm following your analysis: I'm
looking at my log file and I'm seeing lines similar to
snf2beta 20040407020014 D60a4134.SMD 181 30 Match 101576 58 20 38 68
And that 181 figure seems to hold pretty stable. 181 is
substantially lower than the values I was seeing prior to the current beta [and
I have a production machine similar in content and power to your test machine],
but I'm seeing that you achieve numbers 2-6 times faster than I am.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 11:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [sniffer] Final beta (b2) for snfrv2r3
Compare with a snippet from our IMail/NT4 test platform (severely underpowered)...
snf2beta 20040407140913 D0b86122.SMD 30 90 Final 75148 63 0 6891 68
snf2beta 20040407140913 D0b8614e.SMD 90 140 Final 103691 57 0 8878 72
The first thing I notice is that the setup times (first number) on your system are consistently large. According to your log entries it is taking a quarter of a second to scan the working directory for a job... That's a LOT of time for a directory scan to take.
I suspect your system is I/O bound. There is no reason that a directory scan should take more than a few tens of milliseconds except occasionally... That puts your numbers out by nearly an order of magnitude (compare 20s & 30s w/ 109, 187, 280+!).
