|
On 11/04/2016 06:51 AM, William Brown
wrote:
thread number:http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/autotuning.html I would like to hear discussion on this topic. independent of number of cpus I would have a default minmum number of threads, your test result for reduced thread number is with clients quickly handling responses and short operations. But if some threads are serving lazy clients or do database access and have to wait, you can quickly run out of threads handling new ops entry cache: you should not only take the available memory into account but also the size of the database, it doesn't make sense to blow up the cache and its associated data (eg hashtables) for a small database just because the memory is there
-- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander |
_______________________________________________ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
