Note, some have mentioned that my client breaks inline formatting. My only comment is after Kevin's signature below:
On 3/16/09 9:53 AM, "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: I wrote: > One more reason this point is an interesting one is that it is one > that gets *worse* with the suggested patch, if only by half a percent. > > Without: > > 600: 80: Medium Throughput: 82632.000 Avg Medium Resp: 0.005 > > with: > > 600: 80: Medium Throughput: 82241.000 Avg Medium Resp: 0.005 Oops. A later version: > Redid the test with - waking up all waiters irrespective of shared, > exclusive > 600: 80: Medium Throughput: 82920.000 Avg Medium Resp: 0.005 The one that showed the decreased performance at 800 was: > a modified Fix (not the original one that I proposed but something > that works like a heart valve : Opens and shuts to minimum > default way thus controlling how many waiters are waked up ) -Kevin All three of those are probably within the margin of error of the measurement. We would need to run the same test 3 or 4 times to gauge its variance before concluding much.
