Kris Zyp wrote: > Yes, I will work on upgrading this patch to 1.0. >=20 > However, I believe in order to realize optimal Windows performance with= out regression/slow-downs, I will also need to disable the use of NTDLL (= and use direct > CreateFileMapping memory maps instead), as mentioned=C2=A0 http://www.o= penldap.org/lists/openldap-bugs/201902/msg00009.html. You had mentioned i= n that thread that > the NTDLL code wasn't destined for release, is that still the case (it = is still in the mdb.master branch)? If you are intending to release (1.0)= with the > NTDLL-based memory maps (which is understandable, can certainly be an e= asier path for Windows users getting started), I will also need to add th= e compiler > option to disable it. Anyway, I will work on creating a PR with both th= ese patches.
Might be interesting to investigate why the behavior with NTDLL is so muc= h slower on Azure. Since the Win32 APIs are implemented on top of the NT APIs, you would expect th= em to perform identically. Perhaps there's some additional flag that the Win32 API is passing to NT = that is needed on Azure. >=20 > Thanks, > Kris >=20 > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 8:14 AM Howard Chu <h...@symas.com <mailto:hyc@s= ymas.com>> wrote: >=20 > Kris Zyp wrote: > > Sorry to keep pestering, but just pinging about this patch again,= as I still think this fix could benefit windows users. And at this point= , I think I can > say we > > have tested it pretty well, running on our servers for almost a y= ear :). >=20 > Looks like this patch is against the 0.9 release branch. I hit a bu= nch of conflicts > trying to apply it to mdb.master. We'll be stopping work on 0.9 soo= n, and getting > LMDB 1.0 out the door finally, so can you please verify that your c= hanges will work > on mdb.master as well? >=20 > > Thanks, > > Kris > > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:56 PM Kris Zyp <kris...@gmail.com <mai= lto:kris...@gmail.com> <mailto:kris...@gmail.com <mailto:kris...@gmail.co= m>>> wrote: > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Checking on this again, is this still a possib= ility for merging into LMDB? This fix is still working great (improved pe= rformance) on our systems. > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Thanks, > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Kris > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:04 PM Kris Zyp <kris= z...@gmail.com <mailto:kris...@gmail.com> <mailto:kris...@gmail.com <mailt= o:kris...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Is this still being considered/r= eviewed? Let me know if there are any other changes you would like me to = make. This patch has continued to yield > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0significant and reliable perform= ance improvements for us, and seems like it would be nice for this to be = available for other Windows users. > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:52 PM K= ris Zyp <kris...@gmail.com <mailto:kris...@gmail.com> <mailto:kriszyp@gma= il.com <mailto:kris...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0For the sake of pu= tting this in the email thread (other code discussion in GitHub), here is= the latest squashed commit of the proposed patch (with > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the on-demand, ret= ained overlapped array to reduce re-malloc and opening event handles): > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://github.com= /kriszyp/node-lmdb/commit/726a9156662c703bf3d453aab75ee222072b990f > > >=20 >=20 > --=20 > =C2=A0 -- Howard Chu > =C2=A0 CTO, Symas Corp.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0htt= p://www.symas.com > =C2=A0 Director, Highland Sun=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://highlandsun= .com/hyc/ > =C2=A0 Chief Architect, OpenLDAP=C2=A0 http://www.openldap.org/proj= ect/ >=20 --=20 -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
