Ivo van der Wijk wrote at 2003-1-22 16:10 +0100:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:57:20AM +, Toby Dickenson wrote:
Is there a
way to optimize this?
1. Obviously, use fewer threads. Do you have a component that otherwise
benefits from many threads?
No, except that
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 04:27:05PM +, Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Tuesday 21 January 2003 4:14 pm, Ivo van der Wijk wrote:
Does this mean each thread keeps it's own cache pool of objects?
yes
Do these
references point to the same object instances, or are these copied
as well?
Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 11:43 am, Ivo van der Wijk wrote:
Do these
references point to the same object instances, or are these copied
as well?
They are independant copies
Is there a
way to optimize this?
1. Obviously, use fewer threads. Do you have a component
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 12:14:27PM +, seb bacon wrote:
Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 11:43 am, Ivo van der Wijk wrote:
Do these
references point to the same object instances, or are these copied
as well?
They are independant copies
Is there a
way to
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:57:20AM +, Toby Dickenson wrote:
Is there a
way to optimize this?
1. Obviously, use fewer threads. Do you have a component that otherwise
benefits from many threads?
No, except that the server is pretty heavy loaded sometimes, and multiple
threads
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 3:01 pm, Ivo van der Wijk wrote:
It soudns asif a further upgrde is reasonable.
I think you will have much more joy with 2.6
Also, the 'activity' tab
is new to me (looks interesting ;), and caching settins seem to be ignored
mostly until 2.6, right?
it worked
On Tuesday 21 January 2003 4:14 pm, Ivo van der Wijk wrote:
Does this mean each thread keeps it's own cache pool of objects?
yes
Do these
references point to the same object instances, or are these copied
as well?
They are independant copies
I have the impression the memoryconsumption
