Then, If it were only a firebird issue, all of us would have the problem.
If some of us has the problem, may be an incompatibility between FB, OS and
hardware.
Perhaps, if we share information about our environments, the common origin of
the problem would arise.
Jesus Angel Garcia Zarco
Hello Jesus Garcia,
Then, If it were only a firebird issue, all of us would have the problem.
If some of us has the problem, may be an incompatibility between FB, OS and
hardware.
Perhaps, if we share information about our environments, the common origin of
the problem would arise.
: *firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
*Assunto:* Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit
performance on Windows 2008 R2
Hi Helen.
Thanks for your answer.
You are right.
But the Windows 64 file cache performance was a problem, as said Sean.
Só
Hi,
I suppose we all have our opinions.
This is not an opinion, this is statement, confirmed by our 12 years
experience with Firebird and 5 years with Win 2008.
Your problem with Win2008 is lack of knowledge, that's all, sorry for
the truth.
And I'm not going to offer such technical
Hi,
I suppose we all have our opinions.
This is not an opinion, this is statement, confirmed by our 12 years
experience with Firebird and 5 years with Win 2008.
Your problem with Win2008 is lack of knowledge, that's all, sorry for the
truth.
And I'm not going to offer such technical support
Hi Marius,
Sorry, I don't want to be rude.
I just want to point that there is no problem with Windows 2008 R2, and
a bit tired with all the same questions (with the same answers).
Our largest customers databases are on Win2008R2, and it works just fine
- 500+ users and 150Gb, 440Gb with 50
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit
performance on Windows 2008 R2
Hi Marius,
Sorry, I don't want to be rude.
I just want to point that there is no problem with Windows 2008 R2, and a
bit tired with all the same questions (with the same answers).
Our largest
] *On Behalf Of *Alexey Kovyazin
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:01 PM
*To:* firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit
performance on Windows 2008 R2
Hi Marius,
Sorry, I don't want to be rude.
I just want to point
'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
'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
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
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
Hello all again,
I have met more computers with Windows 2008 R2 64bit where the performance is
very bad.
I was importing into database about 80 GB files into tables with blob fields I
had to use for server
casual Windows 7 32bit computer to get it done on time.
How can it be, that Intel i3
-support@yahoogroups.com
mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
*Assunto:* Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit
performance on Windows 2008 R2
Hi Helen.
Thanks for your answer.
You are right.
But the Windows 64 file cache performance was a problem, as said Sean.
Só
Hi!
CristalDiskMark:
Seq 468 MB/s Read161 MB/s Write(Ten times faster than a notebook
vostro 1510 intel core 2 duo 1.8ghz)
Sequential Disk performance is completely irrelevant to a database
workload which is 99% random I/O. You need to check the random disk
performance. Make sure
-support@yahoogroups.com
mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
*Assunto:* Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit
performance on Windows 2008 R2
Hi Helen.
Thanks for your answer.
You are right.
But the Windows 64 file cache performance was a problem, as said Sean.
Só
*Assunto:* Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit
performance on Windows 2008 R2
Hi Helen.
Thanks for your answer.
You are right.
But the Windows 64 file cache performance was a problem, as said Sean.
Só 'reserving' 10GB as a RAM DRIVE grant that I would have always
Maybe your problem is that you buy a internet server from dell, not a
database server!
What is the diference? Internet servers from Dell does not have a disk
controller WITH physical cache.
Run CrystalDiskMark or other disk benckmark on this computer and in another
desktop computer. If it is slow
Hi Helen.
Thanks for your answer.
You are right.
But the Windows 64 file cache performance was a problem, as said Sean.
Só 'reserving' 10GB as a RAM DRIVE grant that I would have always
available RAM.
But now I solved the 'cache performance' and I will not need RAM DRIVE
anymore.
Even
How you solved your problem?
De: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] Em nome de Hugo Eyng
Enviada em: terça-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2014 10:24
Para: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Assunto: Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit
Hi Fabiano.
My server:
* Intel® Xeon® E5-2609 v2 2.50GHz,10M Cache, 6.4GT/s QPI, No Turbo,
4C, 80W, Max Mem 1333MHz
* 8GB RDIMM, 1600MT/s, Low Volt, Dual Rank, x4 Data Width
* HD 6 x 300GB SAS, 10K RPM, 6GBPS Hot-Plug de 2.5
* PowerEdgeR620,Intel®Xeon®E-26XXv2Processors
Hi Fabiano.
The numbers of CristalDiskMarkSx64 are better:
662 MB/s read and 169 MB/s write
I don´t know de difference between CristalDiskMarkX64 and DiskMarkSx64
But DiskMarkSx64 gave me better numbers.
Hugo
Em 21/01/2014 07:52, fabianoas...@gmail.com escreveu:
Maybe your problem is that
Hello guys,
I found some info about problems with performance when FB is running
on Win2008R2 which is domain controller.
But in my case is it not DC, but the performance is the worst I met.
It is new server running 10GB of RAM, RAID, ... it is quite new
server box.
It cannot be, that
Check for long running transactions.
Test: disconnect everithing from database and run a gfix -sweep.
If you solved your problem you have long running transactions
Em 20/01/2014 20:51, Roland Turcan k...@rotursoft.sk escreveu:
Hello guys,
I found some info about problems with performance
I found some info about problems with performance when FB is running on
Win2008R2 which is domain controller.
But in my case is it not DC, but the performance is the worst I met.
It is new server running 10GB of RAM, RAID, ... it is quite new
server box.
It cannot be, that
Hi.
I am facing a similar situation.
32GB RAM
Dell PowerEdge R420
Intel Xeon CPU E5-2609 two processors 2.40ghz 8 cores
RAID
Firebird 2.5.2 do not use the available resources of the server
even I try to login to the server just one user.
I am using SuperClassic
I felt a little diference by
At 02:01 p.m. 21/01/2014, Hugo Eyng wrote:
As Firebird do not use available RAM I created a RAM DRIVE with 10GB and
pointed parameter 'TempDirectories' (firebird.conf) to this RAM DRIVE, but FB
just uses it rarely in very big 'SELECT'. OK, when FB uses the RAM DRIVE it
increases a SELECT speed
Guten Tag Roland Turcan,
a large Raid Stripe Set can be a real showstopper for Databases
what are your settings for
Database Page Size
and for the Raid
What Type of Raid 1,5,10
Size of the Stripe Set
Hello guys,
I found some info about problems with performance when FB is running
on
38 matches
Mail list logo
