On Jan 5, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Wolfgang Winkler
<wolfgang.wink...@digital-concepts.com> wrote:
> I was wondering, why you'll want to have 100 threads, because the number
> seems a little high to me. So I've just conducted some test on two of our
> development system.
You're right, 100 is high, but I do use SQL quite a lot, and so long running
threads, where the cpu is blocking, waiting for a SQL server response, can
generate a lot of pending threads.
I wanted enough threads to be around to handle short running page requests too.
But besides that, it's very odd that tcmalloc had this huge decrease in
performance at 100 threads. It's perhaps not enough of a reason to avoid
tcmalloc, but it's a cause to worry, nonetheless.
Gustaf's tests didn't show that same slowdown result, and the big slowdown I
have at 100 threads only happens with tcmalloc, not with jemalloc or zippy,
with a simple [clock seconds] ADP page.
-john
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
naviserver-devel mailing list
naviserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/naviserver-devel
