On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 07:49 -0700, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 11/06/2016 04:07 PM, William Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 12:07 +0100, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> >> On 11/04/2016 06:51 AM, William Brown wrote:
> >>> http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/autotuning.html
> >>>
> >>> I would
On 11/06/2016 04:07 PM, William Brown wrote:
On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 12:07 +0100, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 11/04/2016 06:51 AM, William Brown wrote:
http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/autotuning.html
I would like to hear discussion on this topic.
thread number:
independent of number o
On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 12:07 +0100, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> On 11/04/2016 06:51 AM, William Brown wrote:
> > http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/autotuning.html
> >
> > I would like to hear discussion on this topic.
> thread number:
> independent of number of cpus I would have a default minm
On 11/04/2016 06:51 AM, William Brown wrote:
http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/autotuning.html
I would like to hear discussion on this topic.
thread number:
independent of number of cpus I would have a default minmum number of
threads,
your test result for reduced thread number is wit
