Timeline for "performance" a duplicate of "capacity", seriously?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 29, 2013 at 18:31 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @HaukeLaging actually I didn't even notice your answer (my cached copy of the question didn't have it) - I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, but that is a different enough angle that it probably merits the question remaining open and I've reopened it accordingly. | |
| May 29, 2013 at 18:24 | comment | added | Hauke Laging | Have you read my answer to the question? I gave some hints what to change. | |
| May 29, 2013 at 18:16 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @HaukeLaging the capacity planning question (and associated website-speficic question linked at the top) gives advice on how to do benchmarking - presumably Gibson can change, benchmark, and iterate until acceptable performance is achieved. None of that is material to what I believe is your point though - You think the questions are substantially different. If you can tell me how you would answer this question differently (i.e. with something better/more specific than "Do some benchmarks and tune accordingly. Here's a link that talks about doing benchmarks") I'll reopen it. | |
| May 29, 2013 at 18:03 | comment | added | Hauke Laging | The answers to the canonical question do not add anything useful to the comment you made. Or do they in your opinion? If so: What? I would agree with you on "without benchmarks and a better idea of what's causing the slowdown I think it's pretty tough to give useful advice" (at least if "useful" is understood as "specific") but my impression of this site is that in such a case comments are used to get this information from the questioner and not that the question is closed, referring him to a thread that does not even cover this aspect. | |
| May 29, 2013 at 17:43 | history | answered | voretaq7Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |