I like your style. :-)
On February 12, 2015 2:45:24 AM CST, Peter TB Brett
wrote:
>
>Tum-ti-tum... *hums innocently*
>
> Peter
>
>P.S. 8
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperac
Dr. Hawkins wrote:
> Running it many times this morning, with a server across town,
> most of the revOpenDatabase() calls were in the 200-300ms range,
> averaging about 250.
>
> revDataFromQuery() was typically a bit under 200ms, with outliers
> ranging from 20ms to 250ms.
How does that compare
Dr. Hawkins wrote:
> I did some testing a couple of years ago launching standalones and
> confirming that that the could indeed do things in preOpenStack before
> attempting to open the main card (and crashing as a result, due to
> the lack of an Xserver . . .)
You can bypass the xorg init by l
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
> Conjecture about parallelism aside, half a second seems a very long time
>> just to open a DB connection. It may be worthwhile submitting a bug report
>> so that can be reviewed.
>>
>
> I'll time it again, but I think that's what it came to
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Richard Gaskin
wrote:
> Dr. Hawkinsv wrote:
> > My thinking is that the application launches, and then it uses shell
> > commands to launch, say, three other instances which will listen on
> > three other ports. Initial connections would be round robin-ed (?)
> >
Peter TB Brett wrote:
> On 2015-02-12 02:02, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> Phil Davis wrote:
>>> As it stands right now, the engine is single-threaded so there's no
>>> distributing of anything to other cores within a single instance of
>>> your application. As for the future, I can't address that.
>>
Dr. Hawkinsv wrote:
>> Phil Davis wrote:
>> > As it stands right now, the engine is single-threaded so there's no
>> > distributing of anything to other cores within a single instance of
>> > your application. As for the future, I can't address that.
>>
>
> My thinking is that the application laun
On 2015-02-12 02:02, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Phil Davis wrote:
As it stands right now, the engine is single-threaded so there's no
distributing of anything to other cores within a single instance of
your application. As for the future, I can't address that.
If Mark Wieder would be kind enough to
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Richard Gaskin
wrote:
> Phil Davis wrote:
> > As it stands right now, the engine is single-threaded so there's no
> > distributing of anything to other cores within a single instance of
> > your application. As for the future, I can't address that.
>
My thinking
Phil Davis wrote:
> As it stands right now, the engine is single-threaded so there's no
> distributing of anything to other cores within a single instance of
> your application. As for the future, I can't address that.
If Mark Wieder would be kind enough to add forking to the Server engine
we co
On 2/11/15 2:25 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
Am I reading the dictionary correctly?
If I am, the accept command on the server end would use the same "read from
socket" and "write from socket" commands as the client size uses?
Yes.
So when I client first connects to set up a connection, the callba
Am I reading the dictionary correctly?
If I am, the accept command on the server end would use the same "read from
socket" and "write from socket" commands as the client size uses?
So when I client first connects to set up a connection, the callback
message on the serer would be used for authenti
12 matches
Mail list logo
