> On 22 September 2013 03:55, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> wrote: > > > > > new 1.55e10 O=10 M=8 > > old 2.74e10 > > > > new 3.64e10 O=0 M=8 > > old 5.14e10 > > > > am i doing something fundamental wrong, or are the new locks substantially > > slower than the old ones? > > > > In those cases, the new times seem to be quite a bit faster, more than they > are slower in the cases you found > slower, which involved only one process (if I understand the tests)
data entry error. swap new and old for these cases. i confused myself by not calling them semlocks and taslocks in the email. - erik
