Re: java performance in batch of a packaged tool -- JAVA400-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: Re: java performance in batch of a packaged tool
From: Pete Helgren <pete@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 09:46:27 -0600
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/java400-l/>
List-help: <mailto:java400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Java Programming on and around the IBM i <java400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:java400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/java400-l>, <mailto:java400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/java400-l>, <mailto:java400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Sorry, didn't read carefully enough. Are you sure that the 32bit JVM is being used here? I'd make sure that the invocation is starting the 32bit version, which is a better performer.....

Pete Helgren
www.petesworkshop.com
GIAC Secure Software Programmer-Java
Twitter - Sys_i_Geek IBM_i_Geek

On 12/28/2016 9:28 PM, midrange wrote:

Same code & tool, in past (maybe year ago)could send each email in 3-4
seconds - but cannot put a finger on what has changed, other than a catch up
of ptfs - several cumes and all the groups, but with nobody watching, not
positive it started then.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.