On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 10/26/07, I wrote:
On 10/26/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
This patch changes from using a single thread for each backend started
Magnus Hagander wrote:
As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap was allocated, or
about 80 bytes per connection. No danger of hitting limits in the
kernel memory pools either.
As Dave said, it could be that the server version uses a lot less heap per
process, which would be
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 10:01:09AM +, Dave Page wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap was allocated, or
about 80 bytes per connection. No danger of hitting limits in the
kernel memory pools either.
As Dave said, it could be that the
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I'm certainly not convinved about that either, but we should make a test on
a VM at some point.
Sophos AV has plugins into for example the explorer (I assume - most AV
does, haven't used Sophos specifically myself), which may be done with
extra DLLs loading along with
On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap was allocated, or
about 80 bytes per connection. No danger of hitting limits in the
kernel memory pools either.
As Dave
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 04:00:04AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap was allocated, or
about 80 bytes per connection. No
On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 04:00:04AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap
Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 04:00:04AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the
--- Original Message ---
From: Trevor Talbot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10/11/07, 23:17:13
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.2.3: Server crashes on Windows using Eclipse/Junit
As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap was allocated, or
about 80
On 10/26/07, I wrote:
On 10/26/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
This patch changes from using a single thread for each backend started to
using the builtin threadpool functionality. It also replaces the
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 01:19:24PM -0700, Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 10/22/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trevor Talbot wrote:
I'd probably take the approach of combining win32_waitpid() and
threads. You'd end up with 1 thread per 64 backends; when something
interesting
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 05:25:39AM -0700, Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 10/26/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
This patch changes from using a single thread for each backend started to
using the builtin
On 10/26/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
This patch changes from using a single thread for each backend started to
using the builtin threadpool functionality. It also replaces the pid/handle
arrays with an
Taking this one to -hackers once and for all now...
Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
Regression tests run just fine, and I've run multiple pgbench runs with
3 and 4 sessions of 100 connections each*, with pgAdmin monitoring
things at the same
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Taking this one to -hackers once and for all now...
Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
Regression tests run just fine, and I've run multiple pgbench runs with
3 and 4 sessions of 100 connections each*, with pgAdmin monitoring
things
Magnus Hagander wrote:
VM size in taskmgr should show that I think, and should show a much
smaller footprint now..
With patch -4,492K
Without patch: 28,224K
Thats with 3 x 100 pgbench connections.
/D
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have
Dave Page wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
VM size in taskmgr should show that I think, and should show a much
smaller footprint now..
With patch -4,492K
Without patch: 28,224K
Thats with 3 x 100 pgbench connections.
That's nice!
But. That can't be address space usage, it has to be
Dave Page wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Right. You need to look at VM size in *process explorer*. VM size in
task manager has nothing to do with VM size, it's the private bytes :-S
And there is no way to see that info from task manager, I think. PE is
your friend.
Anyway. Other than a
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Right. You need to look at VM size in *process explorer*. VM size in
task manager has nothing to do with VM size, it's the private bytes :-S
And there is no way to see that info from task manager, I think. PE is
your friend.
Anyway. Other than a refresher on those,
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached is an updated version of the patch, currently being tested by
both me and Dave. If it passes our tests, I'll apply this so it gets
included for broader testing in beta2.
One question: what's this about?
+ #define _WIN32_WINNT 0x0500
This
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached is an updated version of the patch, currently being tested by
both me and Dave. If it passes our tests, I'll apply this so it gets
included for broader testing in beta2.
One question: what's this about?
+ #define
21 matches
Mail list logo
