Hi Robert,

If you are looking for some guidance on hardware purchasing, we need to know a
few things.

1.) How many records per batch.
2.) How many operations per record
3.) Preferred operating system (gives guidance as to type of filing systems
available and cache peculiarities)
4.) Number of concurrent users who are querying the same tables being inserted
into.

What I am trying to determine from the above questions is how much actual disk
activity versus disk thrash is going on and getting an idea about processor
requirements.

We insert GB's of data a week into our IB 5.6 database (yes we still have not
upgraded our workhorse machine). And that system is a realtime database
being queried by multiple IVR and SSI boxes from three cities in two separite
provinces.

We process billing and customer service control from our system with CSR's and
administration personel accessing it continuosly.

When you say your system is optimized and slow, I must really get alot more
details in order to help you.

best regards

Dalton

On November 11, 2004 01:04 am, robertgilland wrote:
> Thank you David,
> This is the type of responce we needed.
> The problem with the task we are doing is that it is HUGE.
> It takes lots of minute steps that each take microseconds,
> but they add up to hours/days and they need to be done
> in sequential order.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert.
>
> --- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, David Johnson
>
> <d_johnson@c...> wrote:
> > I think we need more info to provide meaningful feedback.
> >
> > If the bottleneck is really at the hardware level, then you want to
>
> go
>
> > to at least a 64 bit Opteron box with gigabit SAN connectivity and
>
> as
>
> > many CPU's as you can profitably use.
> >
> > If your process is queueable and you are running a multi-CPU box
>
> then
>
> > running the receiving process on a separate thread from the write
> > process will allow the queue to buffer spike loads and maximize
> > throughput
> >
> > What throughput are you experiencing? What hardware do you currently
> > have?
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>