| To: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] pmlogger performance |
| From: | Stan Cox <scox@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:20:00 -0400 |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <51E4A93F.4070505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <51E374C4.5@xxxxxxxxxx> <51E4A12C.5000003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51E4A7DE.1090307@xxxxxxxxxx> <51E4A93F.4070505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 |
On 07/15/2013 10:00 PM, Ken McDonell wrote: If the benchmark was using 80% of the available CPU cycles Have a recommendation for a worthy benchmark? Perhaps mysql or postgres? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] pmlogger performance, Ken McDonell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | pcp updates: unix domain sockets, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] pmlogger performance, Ken McDonell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] pmlogger performance, Ken McDonell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |