On 2005.02.06, Jim Wilcoxson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > we're using ns_shares heavily and so are stuck with TCL 7.x, which is > no longer supported. (I know there are hacks in TCL 8 for ns_shares, > but when we benchmarked them, they were much slower. So no compelling > reason to upgrade, for us, at least not yet.)
Jim, Can you share the code and a description of the process you used to benchmark ns_share performance? Can you share the results of your benchmarking, too? (If you've already done this before, I apologize: could you point me to where you've done so?) If the performance of ns_share is the ONLY thing keeping you from moving forward to AOLserver 4.x and Tcl 8.x, then I'd like to see what kind of effort would be involved in making ns_share perform better. The current ns_share implementation in 4.x (based on my understanding of the code in nsd/tclshare.c) uses a single Tcl hashtable serialized through a single critsec lock and Tcl traces to keep data synchronized across threads. I think we could get much better performance by defining a new Tcl obj type that facilitates the thread-shared storage (read: this could benefit NSV's too), but I don't want to start working on this until I have a decent benchmark in place to judge whether the effort is worth the investment or not. If you've already done the initial work of creating a usable benchmark, I'd like to reuse that as a head-start. Otherwise, I might go ahead and create one ... in my Copious Spare Time (tm). -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
