Please hlod off for a day. I've done some pools coding too again (and hopefully I can send in a patch tonight). It should have even better performance. Just ironing it out.
Thanks, Sander > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Holsman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 August 2001 21:14 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Fwd: brianp patch Quantify results] (was thread-specific free > listfor pools" patch ) > > > One of our other developers ran Brian Pane's > thread-specific free list for pools patch (posted ~1 week ago) > > > > here are his results. > ...Ian > > -----Forwarded Message----- > From: Blaise Tarr <XXXXXXXXXX> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: brianp patch Quantify results > > > Hey, > > For the baseline I used the CVS version from yesterday (8/3) morning. > Then I applied Brian's "thread-specific free list for pools" patch. > > I used these configs: > StartServers 1 > MaxClients 1 > MinSpareThreads 5 > MaxSpareThreads 10 > ThreadsPerChild 25 > > For the test, I requested 500 news.com pages that have 2 virtual > includes. The pages were copies of the same file but had different > names. (lynx -source http://hungry.cnet.com/2file/00${i}.html) > > handle_include + descendants were 9.5% faster with Brian's patch, and > accounted for 5.89% of the total time, as opposed to 6.28% of the > total time for the baseline. Overall, Brian's patch reduced the > number of cycles by 3.74%. > > Now, I must add that these are Quantify numbers, not real world > numbers. > So, what's next? > > -- > Blaise Tarr > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CNET.com > 908.541.3771 The source for computers and technology. > > > >
