what you tested with Firebird. I got around 28 tx/sec with 8 threads. Have
you got chance to run your test on Linux?
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 10:40:04 +0200
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] performance issue with firebird
On 15-6-2016 17:55, chen hsu chen...@outlook.com [firebird-support] wrote:
> Thanks, Helen. Please see my replies inline.
>
> I am sure it is not 3.0 specific, 2.5 is the same. and the main issue is
> scalability, sequential transaction performance is actually pretty good,
> comparable to ESE store
: [firebird-support] performance issue with firebird 3.0 embedded on
linux
---In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
> yes, one connection per database, any thread needs to access this database
> would
> create its own transaction.
---In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
> yes, one connection per database, any thread needs to access this database
> would
> create its own transaction.
Then you have serialization at connection level. Both engine and remote layer
doesn't allow to run more than one thread per
yes, one connection per database, any thread needs to access this database
would create its own transaction.
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:38:48 +0200
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] performance issue with firebird 3.0
Hi,
do you mean that you share one connection between multiple threads?
regards,
Karol Bieniaszewski
From: mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 5:55 PM
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [firebird-support] performance issue with firebird 3.0
thread measures its own
elapsed time.
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:04:33 +1200
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] performance issue with firebird 3.0 embedded on
linux
Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 5:58:39 PM, Karol B. wrote:
> test without details say nothing to me
> 1. Did you compare results with e.g. FB2.5 in on the same maschine with same
> configuration (FBConfig)
> 2. What is your page size and type of HDD?
> 3. Do you have BOST feature enabled on CPU and HT
Hi,
test without details say nothing to me
1. Did you compare results with e.g. FB2.5 in on the same maschine with same
configuration (FBConfig)
2. What is your page size and type of HDD?
3. Do you have BOST feature enabled on CPU and HT?
4. Did you compare results on GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE - i
Hi there,
Recently I am doing some performance test on firebird 3.0 embedded used in my
project. The test is pretty straightforward, on one same table, use 100
insertions per transaction as base test unit (creating a transaction, using a
loop to insert 100 records, and committing the transaction
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:26:24 +0100, André Knappstein
wrote:
>> Checkout the releasenotes of 2.5 on the filesystem cache:
>>
http://www.firebirdsql.org/file/documentation/release_notes/html/rlsnotes252.html#rnfb25-fbconf-fscache
>
> Did so before, and did now again.
> Did not clearly understand if
> Checkout the releasenotes of 2.5 on the filesystem cache:
> http://www.firebirdsql.org/file/documentation/release_notes/html/rlsnotes252.html#rnfb25-fbconf-fscache
Did so before, and did now again.
Did not clearly understand if it is important for Win200_8_x64.
Is that important for "(Mic
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 12:52:58 +0100, André Knappstein
wrote:
>> The basic issues is that, by default wants to cache all disk pages
>> and with a 64 bit OS it think it has a huge amount of RAM. So once
>> all physical RAM has been consumed Windows starts to read/write to
>> the disk page file, which
> The basic issues is that, by default wants to cache all disk pages
> and with a 64 bit OS it think it has a huge amount of RAM. So once
> all physical RAM has been consumed Windows starts to read/write to
> the disk page file, which causes an excessive amount of disk IO and thus
> slows the sys
Michael,
> We have just this night moved an 80Gb DB from one server to another this
> night.
>
> And today performance of the DB is slow! So slow it is almost unusable.
>
> Before we switch back I would like some suggestions, which I might not have
> considered. But first background.
>
>
> FIR
Hi
We have just this night moved an 80Gb DB from one server to another this night.
And today performance of the DB is slow! So slow it is almost unusable.
Before we switch back I would like some suggestions, which I might not have
considered. But first background.
FIREBIRD:
Firebird 2.1 64 b
Hi,
> Our customer has changed the server from Windows XP to new HP server
> Windows 2008 R2 64bit, where he needs to run FB2.1 32bit.
There's a problem with Windows 2008 server and 32 bits FB (and other apps)
regarding to cache memory. See if your box is taking a lot of RAM (near 100%),
if
Hello all,
Our customer has changed the server from Windows XP to new HP server
Windows 2008 R2 64bit, where he needs to run FB2.1 32bit. The server
is installed with default options.
The problem is, that the performance on new Windows 2008 Server R2 is
significantly lower than on old Windows XP
18 matches
Mail list logo
