On 3/16/09 9:53 AM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
