|
On 06/30/2016 08:14 PM, William Brown
wrote:
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.htmlLooks 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? That's only one part of it - you'd have to figure out some way to get rid of the overhead of the formatting and flushing in the operation threads too. I suppose you could just write it and see what happens. -- 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
|
-- 389-devel mailing list 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
