From: Colin Nevin (colin_nevin at domain yahoo.com)
Date: Fri 06 Sep 2002 - 11:59:51 IST
LOL
>
> Think that's bad! Eircell bought a mad
> mainframe class machine from Compaq (GS160) to
> run their billing app faster. But it ran at exactly
> the same speed for some reason. I was called in
> and promptly found a sleep(1) synchronisation
> between 2 processes! So much for throwing hardware
> at a problem.
>
> Padraig.
>
So much for throwing hardware at a problem indeed, I
have heard of some unscrupulous contractors doing that
so they are called back in to 'optimize' the
application :)
As my own problem as the parent process controls all
i/o so just drawing a screen (using curses), involves
hundreds of semop calls to syncronise with the child
so adding a delay no matter how small will have a
detrimental effect on preformance; I have see examples
of using semop that have a sleep between semop calls
to 'allow time for the semaphore to change state' ??
Surely this is not necessary or am I missing
something?
Perhaps there are some compile options I can try, or
can I use a different implemenation of semaphores if
available for Linux.
thanks for the pointers though,
C.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:18:42 GMT