Trevor Talbot wrote:
> On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 04:00:04AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
>>> On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
> As for desktop heap,
On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 04:00:04AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
> > On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
> >
> > > > As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 04:00:04AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
> On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
>
> > > As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap was allocated, or
> > > about 80 bytes per connecti
On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
> > As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap was allocated, or
> > about 80 bytes per connection. No danger of hitting limits in the
> > kernel memory pools either.
>
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I'm certainly not convinved about that either, but we should make a test on
> a VM at some point.
>
> Sophos AV has plugins into for example the explorer (I assume - most AV
> does, haven't used Sophos specifically myself), which may be done with
> extra DLLs loading along
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 10:01:09AM +, Dave Page wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap was allocated, or
> >> about 80 bytes per connection. No danger of hitting limits in the
> >> kernel memory pools either.
> >
> > As Dave said, it could be t
Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap was allocated, or
>> about 80 bytes per connection. No danger of hitting limits in the
>> kernel memory pools either.
>
> As Dave said, it could be that the server version uses a lot less heap per
> process, which would
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
> On 10/26/07, I wrote:
> > On 10/26/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
> > >
> > > This patch changes from using a single thread for each ba
> --- Original Message ---
> From: "Trevor Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: 10/11/07, 23:17:13
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.2.3: Server crashes on Windows using Eclipse/Junit
>
> A
On 10/26/07, I wrote:
> On 10/26/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
> >
> > This patch changes from using a single thread for each backend started to
> > using the builtin threadpool functionality. It also re
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Attached is an updated version of the patch, currently being tested by
>> both me and Dave. If it passes our tests, I'll apply this so it gets
>> included for broader testing in beta2.
>
> One question: what's this about?
>
>> + #
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached is an updated version of the patch, currently being tested by
> both me and Dave. If it passes our tests, I'll apply this so it gets
> included for broader testing in beta2.
One question: what's this about?
> + #define _WIN32_WINNT 0x0500
Dave Page wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Right. You need to look at VM size in *process explorer*. VM size in
>> task manager has nothing to do with VM size, it's the private bytes :-S
>> And there is no way to see that info from task manager, I think. PE is
>> your friend.
>>
>>
>> Anyway. Oth
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Right. You need to look at VM size in *process explorer*. VM size in
> task manager has nothing to do with VM size, it's the private bytes :-S
> And there is no way to see that info from task manager, I think. PE is
> your friend.
>
>
> Anyway. Other than a refresher on t
Dave Page wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> VM size in taskmgr should show that I think, and should show a much
>> smaller footprint now..
>
> With patch -4,492K
> Without patch: 28,224K
>
> Thats with 3 x 100 pgbench connections.
That's nice!
But. That can't be address space usage, it ha
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> VM size in taskmgr should show that I think, and should show a much
> smaller footprint now..
With patch -4,492K
Without patch: 28,224K
Thats with 3 x 100 pgbench connections.
/D
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have
> > Taking this one to -hackers once and for all now...
> >
> > Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
>
> Regression tests run just fine, and I've run multiple pgbench runs with
> 3 and 4 sessions of 100 connections each*, with pgAdmin monitoring
> things at the
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Taking this one to -hackers once and for all now...
>
> Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
Regression tests run just fine, and I've run multiple pgbench runs with
3 and 4 sessions of 100 connections each*, with pgAdmin monitoring
thin
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 05:25:39AM -0700, Trevor Talbot wrote:
> On 10/26/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
> >
> > This patch changes from using a single thread for each backend started to
> > using the bu
On 10/26/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you try the attached patch? See how many backends you can get up to.
>
> This patch changes from using a single thread for each backend started to
> using the builtin threadpool functionality. It also replaces the pid/handle
> arrays wi
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 01:19:24PM -0700, Trevor Talbot wrote:
> On 10/22/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Trevor Talbot wrote:
>
> > > I'd probably take the approach of combining win32_waitpid() and
> > > threads. You'd end up with 1 thread per 64 backends; when something
> > >
21 matches
Mail list logo
