RE: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

[Marius Labuschagne]

Hi All,

Hereby I notify everyone that Windows 2008R2 has NO performance issues with
Firebird databases till 200Gb in size, and not so many after this size.

In all cases when you see performance degradation at Win2008R2 and
everything is smooth on Linux/Win7/etc - it is not an OS fault, it's a
problem with configuration (incl. version) of Firebird and OS (incl. drivers
and domain controllers), or performance problems in your own code (in 80%
it's long-running transactions).

Regards,
Alexey Kovyazin
IBSurgeon
PS Btw, guys who started the topic already fixed the problem. I hope they
will provide more details who they achieved it.


[Marius Labuschagne] 

Hi Alexey,

I suppose we all have our opinions.

I do not agree with yours though, as out of the "box" installs of Firebird,
no tweaked configurations for Firebird, performs well on all configurations
and OS's I have tried, except on Win 2008 R2.

The machine in question is not a domain controller, so its not that.

Performance problems with your own code, laughing at this, as the same
problem will present itself on other platforms then as well, especially if
the platforms compared is presenting the problem on the supposedly more
superior platform.

But like you say the guys that started the topic already fixed the problem,
and I don't want to highjack the topic, just wanted to let them know that
they certainly not the only people experiencing that issue.  

So here is hoping the guys will share what they did to resolve the
performance issue.

 

Regards

Marius

RE: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

[Marius Labuschagne]

There are other things that should be considered, specially when you compare
two different hardwares. For example, I know there are some DELL servers
being sold with disk controller with *no cache*! This would be terrible
(regarding performance) when running a database server.

So, the Windows cache problem is not the only factor that needs to be
considered for differences in performance. The only 100% correct way of
blamming the OS in your case, would be installing Win 7 in that same machine
running Win2008, and compare.

Carlos
Firebird Performance in Detail -  
http://videos.firebirddevelopersday.com
  www.firebirdnews.org -
 www.FireBase.com.br






'So the only effective solution seems to disable the random access request
(i.e. remove the FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS flag) from the Windows API calls
used to create/open the files. Moreover, in this case the file-system cache
size limit should not be actual anymore, as Windows won't be expanding the
cache out of the reasonable boundaries. The quick tests prove this solution
being workable.'

...

'Taking this into account, as well as the experience of other databases,
this solution has been committed into Firebird 2.1.5, Firebird 2.5.2 and
Firebird 3.0 branches.'


This made me assume this issue wasn't the cause of our problems.  However by
the sounds of it the fix might not be working.
   

We are using Windows 2008 R2 64 bits, with databases around 35 Gb, and we
solved the performance problems with FB 2.5.2. We tested it before and after
apply the patch in 2.5.2 versión and verify that the problems was gone. 

I thin you have to look up in other direction. 

[Marius Labuschagne] 

We have sites running Windows 2008 R2 64bits (Xeon Quad Core E31220 @ 3.1
Ghz) , with much smaller databases (2-4GB Range), and on Firebird Super
Server 2.5.2, and I can tell you that that platform is definitely much much
slower in performance than just a simple I3 desktop pc with 8GB of RAM on
the exact same database, running Windows 7 Pro or Windows 8 Pro, either 32-
or 64-bit.

I think you are very lucky Jesus that your problem was solved by 2.5.2

Example: Executing the Month-End in our application, exact same database:
-   On a Win 2008 R2 64-bit Xeon Machine with 8GB RAM: 55 Minutes
-   On a Win 7 Pro 64-bit I3 machine with 8GB RAM: 9 Minutes

For that specific platform 2.5.2 has not done anything for the performance
issue.  I suppose we are also lucky that our Clients database is not larger
than the physical RAM present at this point in time, hopefully once they do
get there I will be able to convince the Client that just using a desktop
computer with a standard desktop operating system, is the way to go.

My 2c

Regards
Marius

[Marius Labuschagne] 

Hi Carlos,

I think you might be referring to my post re the Operating Systems.  If you
are, we have indeed tried exactly what you said.  Loaded Win 7 onto that
same machine (Xeon), same database, and indeed the resulting performance was
on spec with what we would have expected on a machine of that spec. 

 

Regards

Marius

RE: [firebird-support] Re: Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

[Marius Labuschagne]

 

17.02.2014 21:36, Marius Labuschagne wrote:
>
> Example: Executing the Month-End in our application, exact same
> database:
>
> - On a Win 2008 R2 64-bit Xeon Machine with 8GB RAM: 55 Minutes
>
> - On a Win 7 Pro 64-bit I3 machine with 8GB RAM: 9 Minutes

Isn't a Win 2008 R2 machine a primary domain controller by any chance? 
What kind of storage is on both machines?

Dmitry

Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

[Alexey Kovyazin]

Hi All,

Hereby I notify everyone that Windows 2008R2 has NO performance issues 
with Firebird databases till 200Gb in size, and not so many after this size.


In all cases when you see performance degradation at Win2008R2 and 
everything is smooth on Linux/Win7/etc - it is not an OS fault, it's a 
problem with configuration (incl. version) of Firebird and OS (incl. 
drivers and domain controllers), or performance problems in your own 
code (in 80% it's long-running transactions).


Regards,
Alexey Kovyazin
IBSurgeon
PS Btw, guys who started the topic already fixed the problem. I hope 
they will provide more details who they achieved it.




*/
/*

Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

[Carlos H. Cantu]

[firebird-support] Re: Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

[Dmitry Yemanov]

17.02.2014 21:36, Marius Labuschagne wrote:
>
> Example: Executing the Month-End in our application, exact same
> database:
>
> - On a Win 2008 R2 64-bit Xeon Machine with 8GB RAM: 55 Minutes
>
> - On a Win 7 Pro 64-bit I3 machine with 8GB RAM: 9 Minutes

Isn't a Win 2008 R2 machine a primary domain controller by any chance? 
What kind of storage is on both machines?


Dmitry

RE: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

[Marius Labuschagne]

'So the only effective solution seems to disable the random access request
(i.e. remove the FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS flag) from the Windows API calls
used to create/open the files. Moreover, in this case the file-system cache
size limit should not be actual anymore, as Windows won't be expanding the
cache out of the reasonable boundaries. The quick tests prove this solution
being workable.'

...

'Taking this into account, as well as the experience of other databases,
this solution has been committed into Firebird 2.1.5, Firebird 2.5.2 and
Firebird 3.0 branches.'


This made me assume this issue wasn't the cause of our problems.  However by
the sounds of it the fix might not be working.


 

We are using Windows 2008 R2 64 bits, with databases around 35 Gb, and we
solved the performance problems with FB 2.5.2. We tested it before and after
apply the patch in 2.5.2 versión and verify that the problems was gone. 

 

I thin you have to look up in other direction. 

 

[Marius Labuschagne] 

 

We have sites running Windows 2008 R2 64bits (Xeon Quad Core E31220 @ 3.1
Ghz) , with much smaller databases (2-4GB Range), and on Firebird Super
Server 2.5.2, and I can tell you that that platform is definitely much much
slower in performance than just a simple I3 desktop pc with 8GB of RAM on
the exact same database, running Windows 7 Pro or Windows 8 Pro, either 32-
or 64-bit.

 

I think you are very lucky Jesus that your problem was solved by 2.5.2

 

Example: Executing the Month-End in our application, exact same database:

-   On a Win 2008 R2 64-bit Xeon Machine with 8GB RAM: 55 Minutes

-   On a Win 7 Pro 64-bit I3 machine with 8GB RAM: 9 Minutes

 

For that specific platform 2.5.2 has not done anything for the performance
issue.  I suppose we are also lucky that our Clients database is not larger
than the physical RAM present at this point in time, hopefully once they do
get there I will be able to convince the Client that just using a desktop
computer with a standard desktop operating system, is the way to go.

 

My 2c

 

Regards

Marius

 

 

[firebird-support] page type 5 lock denied (216)

[Juan Pedro Lopez Saez]

Hello,

I think I am experiencing this bug:

http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/CORE-2848

I'm using Firebird 2.5.2 Super Classic for Linux AMD 64 bits. 

I saw this error in firebird.log when some stress load test were run.

Should I be worried about it (database corruption)?

Best regards,

Juan Pedro López






++

Visit http://www.firebirdsql.org and click the Resources item
on the main (top) menu.  Try Knowledgebase and FAQ links !

Also search the knowledgebases at http://www.ibphoenix.com 

++
Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-support/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-support/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
firebird-support-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
firebird-support-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
firebird-support-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

[Jesus Garcia]

>
>
> 'So the only effective solution seems to disable the random access request
> (i.e. remove the FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS flag) from the Windows API calls
> used to create/open the files. Moreover, in this case the file-system cache
> size limit should not be actual anymore, as Windows won't be expanding the
> cache out of the reasonable boundaries. The quick tests prove this solution
> being workable.'
>
> ...
>
> 'Taking this into account, as well as the experience of other databases,
> this solution has been committed into Firebird 2.1.5, Firebird 2.5.2 and
> Firebird 3.0 branches.'
>
>
> This made me assume this issue wasn't the cause of our problems.  However
> by the sounds of it the fix might not be working.
>
>
>
We are using Windows 2008 R2 64 bits, with databases around 35 Gb, and we
solved the performance problems with FB 2.5.2. We tested it before and
after apply the patch in 2.5.2 versión and verify that the problems was
gone.

I thin you have to look up in other direction.