Subject RE: [ib-support] Re: Performance
Author Alan McDonald
you will arrive at the same performance issues with SQLServer
I'm afraid I would have to query your procedures structure and point the
finger there.

I have hundreds (not thousands) of users. They do not however, connect
simultaneously to the server(s). I have server replication which spreads the
load and middleware which also shares connections. That is typical of a
solution which achieves very satidfying scaleability.

Maybe I have the advantage of more years on this sort of thing than you but
I do know that when a procedure(s) take more than just subminutes of
activity - it's time to look very closely at how they are doing what I want.
I do some very intensive analysis at times and under user demand but I can
always restructure my procedures to perform very quickly with some
inteligent FOR SELECT loops when I need to drill down to the bottom of large
tables or indeed touch every record in a very large table.

every system will have CPU, scalability and intelligent processing at the
hart of good performance. Interbase/Firebird performs very well indeed
compared with competitors and all systems will have more than one way of
doing the same thing but with sometimes dramtic differrences in performance.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Brasseur [mailto:todd@...]
> Sent: Saturday, 7 December 2002 2:15
> To:
> Subject: [ib-support] Re: Performance
> Thanks for the reply ... see my comments below:
> --- In ib-support@y..., Lester Caine <lester@l...> wrote:
> > > Our application has some processes that run for an extended period of
> > > time(up to 4 or 5 hours) as there is alot of complicated calculations.
> > > These processes are written with Stored Procedures (One main
> > > procedure that may call many other procedures.)
> > >
> > > We are experiencing problems where when these procedures are running,
> > > they take over the server. IBServer shows it is taking 99% of the CPU
> > > causing all other users to virtually stop when trying to access the
> > > server.
> > >
> > > We experience a similiar problem when users run complicated queries.
> > >
> > > 1) Is it adviseable to process these types of calculations in Stored
> > > Procedures or should they be written in C++?
> >
> > Anything that reduces the amount of work that the server
> > does will help. You don't say what the processing is, but if
> > it can be run on a client machine and only hold up the
> > server when writing each result then that would help from a
> > load sharing point of view. Some things are great built into
> > the server, but from a load sharing point of view, getting
> > each client to do complex stuff and just post the answers
> > can give much better responce times.
> So much for Client Server.
> This application is a rewrite of a Clipper / DBF (DOS Application)
> Version and an AS/400 version. I thought the benefit of Client Server
> was that you could send a request to the server and the server would
> do the processing without having to bring all the data across the
> network to the client machine. Reducing network traffic would mean
> better performance. The Clipper / DBF application could run the same
> process in 9 minutes that now takes 3 hours. If we re-wrote the
> entire process in C++ then it would allow the Client Machine to do
> the work but would defeat the purpose of being Client Server. I was
> hoping that writing the process in C++ and running it on the server
> would increase performance without having to increase Network Traffic.
> The performance of both the Clipper and AS/400 applications was much
> better than the Firebird one is.
> >
> > > 2) Is there something we can do to ensure the server isn't taken over
> > > by Firebird?
> >
> > Linux or Windows?
> >
> > Linux is much better at 'load sharing' than Windows ( which
> > is NOT a good multi tasking OS ), so the problem here is set
> > the priorities so that Firebird is kicked out when something
> > more important comes up.
> Windows. We have approx. 70 clients and they all run windows.
> >
> > That does not help with the problem that a complex query can
> > lock out other database users, but if the volumn of work
> > means that Firebird is hogging most of the processing time,
> > then you need another server for the rest of the jobs or a
> > faster processor / more memory on the existing one.
> >
> The server it is running on is one year old and cost $10,000.
> Is it possible to add another server? Can two servers serve the same
> database?
> > Not a very satisfactory answer, but this is not simply a
> > Firebird problem.
> I am glad you brought this up. We have clients who are asking us to
> switch to SQL Server. Would we have similiar problems? We are
> talking about an application that has to handle about 30 users at
> most. How do people handle this when they have hundreds and
> thousands of users querying a much larger database?
> Thanks again.
> Todd
> >
> > --
> > Lester Caine
> > -----------------------------
> > L.S.Caine Electronic Services
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to