| Jim Gallacher 2006-11-13, 8:13 am |
| Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Jorey Bump wrote ..
>
> Expected it would be slower for a few reasons. I don't have a good system on
> which to do any comparative tests, so was never sure how much performance hit
> there would be. I did state though early on that the initial aim would be to
> get it working properly and then we can look at the performance and tweak it so
> as to regain as much as possible of what was lost.
And there was no argument there. Make it work right, then make it work
fast. 
At some point we should create some sort of a performance tuning page. I
was thinking of this the other day wrt the number of mutex locks, but at
this point we haven't done any benchmarking so the advice is... more is
better... probably.
Jim
|