Hi, my experience is that without mvcc, Chandler's sync process is no less CPU intensive on my WinXP 2GHz PC, but it takes longer to complete the sync. As a user, I definitely prefer mvcc to be on with regards to task completion. Andre
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:13:47 -0700 (PDT), "Andi Vajda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Zat izze ze qwayshonnnn... > > To quell more futile speculation about the effects of mvcc - > specifically, in > bugs 8268 and bug 8463 - I turned off mvcc by default again. You can of > course > turn it on with the --mvcc command line arg (or the MVCC env var or the > mvcc > option in chandler.prefs) if you so desire. > > I do suspect mvcc to be at play in bug 8268 and I would be curious to see > if > any of you who did get these MemoryError exceptions still get them over > the > coming weeks. > > I don't know yet much about what could cause bug 8463, so again, if you > don't > see the 100% CPU problem reported there over the coming weeks, I'd like > to > know as well. > > Thanks ! > > Andi.. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list > http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
