On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Creating a pool requires locking a mutex. The more we scale, the worse we
> perform.
a mutex is not a requirement... as i explained several months ago. (and
as greg mentioned, this patch just moves the mutex to the queue from the
pool code, which makes it even more questionable.)
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Honestly, I can't give you any quantative results right now, as I don't
> have a very good load-testing environment set up. By "small" I mean, using
> 'ab' with various levels of concurrency showed a possible improvement (on
> my single CPU machine), definately no loss of efficiency. If anyone out
> there could give me some results from before and after on some MP machine
> (4way or more preferably) then that would be very useful.
generally loopback performance measurements should be considered suspect,
and should not be considered justification for commits, especially when
the commit increases code complexity.
-dean
