On Fri, 2001-08-24 at 13:50, Sander Striker wrote:
> Please hlod off for a day. I've done some pools coding
> too again (and hopefully I can send in a patch tonight).
> It should have even better performance. Just ironing it
> out.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sander
>
sander,
could your and brian's patches be merged, or do they both basiclaly
do the same thing.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Holsman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 24 August 2001 21:14
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [Fwd: brianp patch Quantify results] (was thread-specific free
> > listfor pools" patch )
> >
> >
> > One of our other developers ran Brian Pane's
> > thread-specific free list for pools patch (posted ~1 week ago)
> >
> >
> >
> > here are his results.
> > ...Ian
> >
> > -----Forwarded Message-----
> > From: Blaise Tarr <XXXXXXXXXX>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: brianp patch Quantify results
> >
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > For the baseline I used the CVS version from yesterday (8/3) morning.
> > Then I applied Brian's "thread-specific free list for pools" patch.
> >
> > I used these configs:
> > StartServers 1
> > MaxClients 1
> > MinSpareThreads 5
> > MaxSpareThreads 10
> > ThreadsPerChild 25
> >
> > For the test, I requested 500 news.com pages that have 2 virtual
> > includes. The pages were copies of the same file but had different
> > names. (lynx -source http://hungry.cnet.com/2file/00${i}.html)
> >
> > handle_include + descendants were 9.5% faster with Brian's patch, and
> > accounted for 5.89% of the total time, as opposed to 6.28% of the
> > total time for the baseline. Overall, Brian's patch reduced the
> > number of cycles by 3.74%.
> >
> > Now, I must add that these are Quantify numbers, not real world
> > numbers.
> > So, what's next?
> >
> > --
> > Blaise Tarr
> > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CNET.com
> > 908.541.3771 The source for computers and technology.
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Performance Measurement & Analysis
CNET Networks - (415) 364-8608
