On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 20:01 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote: > On 06/30/2016 07:52 PM, William Brown wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've been thinking about this for a while, so I decided to dump my > > thoughts to a document. I think I won't get to implementing this for a > > while, but it would really help our server performance. > > > > http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/logging-performance-improvement.html > > Looks good. Can we quantify the current log overhead? Sure, I could probably sit down and work out a way to bench mark this ..... But without the alternative being written, hard to say. I could always patch out logging and drop the lock in a hacked build so we can show what "without logging contention" looks like? > > > > > > > -- > > 389-devel mailing list > > 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > -- > 389-devel mailing list > 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Sincerely, William Brown Software Engineer Red Hat, Brisbane
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 389-devel mailing list 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
