"RPG400-L" <rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 11/20/2017 01:43:10

In memory only. 12.257 seconds
In IFS only 19.830 seconds
IFS Temp 19.390 seconds

Surprised that the IFS temp did not have more of an impact.

So the question is. Is it worth that 7 seconds for the additional
complexity of allocating memory dynamically?

Yes. Why? Because we have tens of thousands of times per day
that this is done. When we were trying to write to IFS we had hundreds of
jobs that were hanging in mutex waits for long periods of time. Sticking
with in-memory, only, relieved all that. Didn't know about temp IFS until
it was mentioned last week. But, it doesn't look like that would have
saved us enough.


Dave Clark

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2021 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.