Hello Simon,
Thursday, December 15, 2005, 4:53:27 PM, you wrote:
SM> The 3k threads are still GC'd, but they are not actually *copied* during
SM> GC.
SM> It'll increase the memory overhead per thread from 2k (1k * 2 for
SM> copying) to 4k (4k block, no overhead for copying).
Simon, why not to i
Bulat,
On Dec 14, 2005, at 9:00 PM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
TZ> You don't have to check "every few seconds". You can determine
TZ> exactly how much you have to sleep - just check the timeout/
event with
TZ> the lowest ClockTime.
this scenario don't count that we can receive new request while
Hello Tomasz,
Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 10:48:43 PM, you wrote:
TZ> You don't have to check "every few seconds". You can determine
TZ> exactly how much you have to sleep - just check the timeout/event with
TZ> the lowest ClockTime.
this scenario don't count that we can receive new request wh
Hello Joel,
Thursday, December 15, 2005, 5:13:17 PM, you wrote:
>>> The statistics are phys/VM, CPU usage in % and #packets/transfer
>>> speed
>>>
>>> Total: 1345, Lobby: 1326, Failed: 0, 102/184, 50%, 90/8kb
>>> Total: 1395, Lobby: 1367, Failed: 2
>>> Total: 1421, Lobby: 1394, Faile
