On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 02:04:17PM +0100, Anders Johansson wrote: > On Sunday 26 November 2006 14:01, Robert Schiele wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 01:13:45PM +0100, Anders Johansson wrote: > > > I can't say why it should be slower, but since it shouldn't be used at > > > all, it doesn't seem to matter much > > > > That depends on your point of view. From a user's point of view this is > > really pointless because it does not make any sense at all to use such a > > scenario on any productive system. For the developer of the code such > > observations could be quite valuable because the process of finding an > > explanation for such strange observations often uncover obscure bugs or > > design issues. > > It could be as simple as the RAM disk taking up memory that would otherwise > be > used for buffering. Reducing the size of the buffers can cause substantial > performance loss
Sure this might be an explanation depending on the detailed setup that was done here. But only explanations that you can _prove_ to be the cause of the observation can eventually help uncovering a bug. Just listing explanations that _might_ be a cause could make a Sunday afternoon more entertaining but don't help in any way in the respect of identifying problems. Actually my point was not to force you providing an explanation but just to state that you cannot claim an observation pointless just because it results from a setup that does not make sense for production usage. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
pgpddOpTBZboE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
