--- John Clogg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I don't know who is right on this question (I suspect both Denys and Craig
> are to some degree), but I would like to continue the discussion, because it
> is very informative.

I suspect you are right.  :-)

> First, Craig, I'd like to say that I don't think there
> is really any reason to be offended when someone dares to disagree with you
> on a technical matter.

John, I am a friend of Denys, while some may think he is offensive, he does not
offend me.  We actually talk like this to each other when we are in person.
:-)

> HP has never documented the internal behavior of the
> XM very well,

Now there is a big understatement!

I tried to explain the more technical stuff in a previous post.

I am exploring this topic because I experienced it first had till about 4:00am
this morning.  I have two solutions that I am looking at the are mutually
exclusive.

1) Make sure the customer has the patch the minimizes the semaphore lock
overhead during the XM scan.

2) Make a recommendation to split volume sets, creating multiple XM managers.
Hence taking the single threaded XM process and making it multiple threaded.

I am not as good as Denys at explaining myself, but I think I know what I am
doing.  :-)

Hey it least it does't have to do with this country going couter clockwise down
the toilet behind a bunch of smoke and mirror politicians!

Happy Friday,

-Craig



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *