On 2020-02-26 15:46, Paul Reeves wrote:
AFAICT most of the content of that document is rubbish. They have certainly skewed our support costs heavily, using the most extreme examples.
It's also unclear what point version of FB3 was used - 3.0.0 or something newer like 3.0.4. I'm sure they give different scalability results.
The tpc-c performance figures look extremely suspect. Does anyone seriously do tpc-c testing with 2 warehouses? It doesn't make sense to me. Looking at the figures for the full table scan it looks as if they have created a 16 warehouse database. This will occupy around 1.5 GB of disc space and can easily be loaded in memory. This in itself has an impact on the quality of the test results. The InterBase tests were done with journaling and async writes compared to Firebird with synchronous writes. We don't know the journalling configuration. We also don't know how long the tests were run for. And neither do we know anything about the speed and latency of disc sub-system. If the run is short then journalling would have minimal overhead and InterBase writes would just be cached while Firebird would write straight to disk. So basically the comparison would be invalid. More realistic performance comparisons would be o with journalling off and sync vs sync o journalling off and async vs async
Here I can't agree with you. They compare 2 recommended fail-safe configurations - IBase with journalling (due to journalling there is no need to use sync writes) and firebird with sync writes (we have no other way to be fail-safe).
What will be very interesting re journalling - compare interbase with journalling and async writes vs. interbase without journalling and sync writes. This can give us an idea what effect does journalling give.
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
