Peter Memishian wrote: > > So it looks most of the performance loss originated from GLDv3. I guess > the > > next step is to decide whether try to remove those locks or try the > > multiple-lower-streams approach. Note that even we remove all the locks, > > there is still some performance degrade (about 1%) > > Thanks for the very useful data. My personal opinion is that if we can > get to < 1% on the receive-side (along with 0% on the send side), we will > not have a customer adoption problem. However, if the GLDv3 code has to > become incredibly complicated as a result, then we still may want to > pursue the other design. > I think the GLDv3 code will become more complicated no matter which approach we take.
- Cathy
