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.
>
>
>
>
