Hi Wendy, sorry for late answer... i wasn't checking the group lately.
Actually we done the opposite, i mean replacing the item_lock with long cache_lock... i can't give you item_lock numbers but for cache lock it looks like following. 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #1[96byte] - (38.1% used) 2076/5461 --- expired 523, processed 2082 --- Took: 0.56ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #2[112byte] - (99.4% used) 60483/60853 --- expired 33783, processed 40000 --- Took: 14.50ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #3[128byte] - (47.6% used) 50669/106496 --- expired 23238, processed 40000 --- Took: 14.55ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #4[144byte] - (30.2% used) 1098/3640 --- expired 50, processed 1098 --- Took: 0.20ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #5[160byte] - (8.4% used) 273/3276 --- expired 70, processed 273 --- Took: 0.15ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #6[176byte] - (7.7% used) 228/2978 --- expired 61, processed 228 --- Took: 0.22ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #7[200byte] - (19.9% used) 521/2621 --- expired 365, processed 521 --- Took: 0.30ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #8[224byte] - (67% used) 3133/4680 --- expired 175, processed 3133 --- Took: 0.48ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #9[248byte] - (37.7% used) 796/2114 --- expired 536, processed 796 --- Took: 0.60ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #10[272byte] - (10.2% used) 195/1927 --- expired 22, processed 192 --- Took: 0.12ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #11[304byte] - (10.4% used) 179/1724 --- expired 7, processed 177 --- Took: 0.12ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #12[336byte] - (90.1% used) 2811/3120 --- expired 18, processed 2811 --- Took: 0.45ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #13[376byte] - (4.4% used) 61/1394 --- expired 17, processed 61 --- Took: 0.10ms 127.0.0.1:xxxxxx Slab #14[416byte] - (9.3% used) 116/1260 --- expired 15, processed 116 --- Took: 0.11ms etc.
