On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 20:51 +, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 00:42 +0100, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> > On 2/21/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > i've been running some performance tests: the aim being to check how
> > > much slower JCL 1.1 runs that
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 00:42 +0100, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> On 2/21/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i've been running some performance tests: the aim being to check how
> > much slower JCL 1.1 runs that the 1.0.x releases. the figures for log4j
> > are interesting. the raw d
On 2/21/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i've been running some performance tests: the aim being to check how
> much slower JCL 1.1 runs that the 1.0.x releases. the figures for log4j
> are interesting. the raw data is below (the percentages are normalised
> to 1.0.4 benchmark
i've been running some performance tests: the aim being to check how
much slower JCL 1.1 runs that the 1.0.x releases. the figures for log4j
are interesting. the raw data is below (the percentages are normalised
to 1.0.4 benchmark times).
1. there is a small performance degradation between the 1.0
