Subject | Re: IB/FB and MySQL at low bandwidth connection |
---|---|
Author | ilizaran |
Post date | 2003-03-24T10:28:52Z |
I am using Firebird 1.02 for my application and I want to access
the data over the internet also. The performance is very good over
the LAN but low over the internet.
The client's connection speed is 512 kbit/s for download and 128
bit/s for upload. This is quite fast, but not enough either...
Can I change something in Firebird to get better performance over
internet?
Nacho.
the data over the internet also. The performance is very good over
the LAN but low over the internet.
The client's connection speed is 512 kbit/s for download and 128
bit/s for upload. This is quite fast, but not enough either...
Can I change something in Firebird to get better performance over
internet?
Nacho.
--- In ib-support@yahoogroups.com, "Alan McDonald" <alan@m...> wrote:
> do you mean packet size?
> if so then I don't think so
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ilizaran [mailto:nacho@h...]
> Sent: Monday, 24 March 2003 9:00 PM
> To: ib-support@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [ib-support] Re: IB/FB and MySQL at low bandwidth
> connection
>
>
> Is posible change pakage size? I can't use TCP_REMOTE_BUFFER
> parameter to get better performance ...
>
> Thanks
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 20/03/2003 at 15:14 Alan McDonald wrote:
> I would imagine that if you backup without asking for verbose
output
> (i.e. a
> memo feed) there will not be any traffic back to the client...
> As for the other times... maybe you have a point here
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nvitya [mailto:viktor.nagy@i...]
> Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2003 3:08 PM
> To: ib-support@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [ib-support] Re: IB/FB and MySQL at low bandwidth
connection
>
>
> > TCPDUMP ANALYSIS OF INTERBASE QUERY RUN:
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > query = "select count(*), 'RESULT' from test"
> >
> > Start
> > client -> IB, 12 bytes
> > + 065 ms
> > IB -> client, 32 bytes
> > + 000 ms
> > client -> IB, 8 bytes
> > + 050 ms
> > IB -> client, 32 bytes
> > + 000 ms
> > client -> IB, 80 bytes with the query text
> > + 059 ms
> > IB -> client, 64 bytes
> > + 000 ms
> > client -> IB, 24 bytes
> > + 049 ms
> > IB -> client, 40 bytes
> > + 000 ms
> > client -> IB, 32 bytes
> > + 083 ms
> > IB -> client, 236 bytes, most of it is zero and there is a
text
> > "COUNT" twice
> > + 000 ms
> > client -> IB, 32 bytes
> > + 110 ms
> > IB -> client, 408 bytes, most of it is zero and there is a
text
> > "COUNT" twice
> > + 000 ms
> > client -> IB, 24 bytes
> > + 048 ms
> > IB -> client, 32 bytes
> > + 000 ms
> > client -> IB, 28 bytes
> > + 058 ms
> > IB -> client, 32 bytes
> > + 000 ms
> > client -> IB, 40 bytes
> > + 084 ms
> > IB -> client, 40 bytes with the text "RESULT"
> >
> > The total query time is 606 ms.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> And additionally:
>
> When I do remote backup (using service manager) with verbose output
30
> MEGABYTES data was transmitted to the client who made the backup.
The
> database was 1.1M, its backup is 160 k.
> I used IBConsole.
> What the hell this is? Do we really need the huge amount zeros to be
> transmitted?
>
> I checked the Microsoft SQL server protocol. It has the same result
> as the
> MySQL and PostgreSQL. Only the Interbase is slow.
>
> Viktor
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/