Subject | Slow inital connect... |
---|---|
Author | Yves Glodt |
Post date | 2005-03-15T22:34:32Z |
Hello,
we are using Firebird since version 1.0 with databases sized between
10MB and 2.5GB.
Last week I encountered my first annoyance, and I think it's a known
problem, but I did not find more information about it :-(
Versions:
OS: XP Pro
FB: 1.5.2 installed as superserver
Box: P4 3GHz with hyperthreading enabled
Filesystem: NTFS on a RAID1 (Mirror)
Database is about 2.4 GB (single file)
The first (initial) connection our applications make to the server
(after XP has been restarted) make the applications hang for about 10
minutes (while they wait for data it seems). They seems to be frozen,
and nothing happens, except that the server seems to have heavy disk
operations. CPU load is unimportant (a few %)
After the 10 minutes have passed, suddenly everything works great,
with good speed and no problems at all.
It's the first time I encounter this problem, all our other DBs did
and do never take so much time, but they are also smaller... the
next-smaller is about 800MB.
What is this problem due to?
TIA and best regards,
Yves
p.s. I resend this message as the first one did not seem to get through... :-(
we are using Firebird since version 1.0 with databases sized between
10MB and 2.5GB.
Last week I encountered my first annoyance, and I think it's a known
problem, but I did not find more information about it :-(
Versions:
OS: XP Pro
FB: 1.5.2 installed as superserver
Box: P4 3GHz with hyperthreading enabled
Filesystem: NTFS on a RAID1 (Mirror)
Database is about 2.4 GB (single file)
The first (initial) connection our applications make to the server
(after XP has been restarted) make the applications hang for about 10
minutes (while they wait for data it seems). They seems to be frozen,
and nothing happens, except that the server seems to have heavy disk
operations. CPU load is unimportant (a few %)
After the 10 minutes have passed, suddenly everything works great,
with good speed and no problems at all.
It's the first time I encounter this problem, all our other DBs did
and do never take so much time, but they are also smaller... the
next-smaller is about 800MB.
What is this problem due to?
TIA and best regards,
Yves
p.s. I resend this message as the first one did not seem to get through... :-(