* Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> [2007-02-05 17:36:04]: > Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > > > * Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> [2007-02-05 > > 16:42:13]: > > > >> Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > >> > >> > * Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> [2007-02-05 > >> > 16:30:39]: > >> > > >> >> Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > * Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> > >> >> > [2007-02-05 15:46:09]: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Jano wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I'm going to test now a standard 128m node with no insertions nor > >> >> >> > clients running... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> (Actually what I have done is to put all my inserts in "will never > >> >> >> finish". Should this cease all local insertion activity, Toad?) > >> >> > > >> >> > No. > >> >> > >> >> Well, then I'll remove my inserts. But how is then interpreted this > >> >> priority setting? "Will be processed iif there's nothing else going > >> >> on?" > >> > > >> > It depends on the scheduler policy you've choosen. If you are using the > >> > default (HARD) then yes. > >> > >> Ok. > >> > >> A basic question in this leak hunt: is the insertion process designed to > >> use constant (or, rather, upper bounded) memory per insertion? > >> > > No but there is a minimum. > > Mmmm. Could you elaborate on what's that can't be bounded?
I've not said it can't be : I said it's not :)
