---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/56935/#review173414
---
Master (c85bffd) is green with this patch.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/56935/
---
(Updated April 28, 2017, 3:15 p.m.)
Review request for Aurora, David
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/56935/#review172352
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham
On Feb. 22,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/56935/#review172213
---
Ship it!
LGTM. We should ship it before it gets stale :-)
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/56935/
---
(Updated Feb. 22, 2017, 11:34 a.m.)
Review request for Aurora, David
> On Feb. 22, 2017, 10:27 a.m., Zameer Manji wrote:
> > Could you please add to the RB description on what methodology you used to
> > determine this and what are the results of this patch?
> >
> >
> > Further, do you have any ideas on how we can prevent regressions?
Short-term, we need to
> On Feb. 22, 2017, 10:07 a.m., Reza Motamedi wrote:
> > Mehrdad, do you also have some stats on how much these changes reduced the
> > object creation rate?
The object allocation rate dropped from of 25 M/s on average to 15-20 M/s. But,
as I indicated above these numbers are not
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/56935/#review166385
---
Mehrdad, do you also have some stats on how much these changes
