ak_s13 wrote:

>Yes, Processing at 100%. Windows 2000server. Not sure of the
>mainboard model. SATA from the board.
>
>I was thinking of recommending our client get something like a Dell
>PowerEdge server with;
>
>* 2 or 4 Xenon 3.6Mhz CPU's - but I'm not sure more than 1 CPU with
>make much of a difference with Firebird 1.5?
>
>* 2-8Gb ECC RAM - but I'm not sure how much more RAM firebird 1.5 can
>benefit from?
>
>* 3-5 SCSI drives (RAID 0) - I was also thinking of having OS and
>TEMP on a separate RAID channel to the DB. Also when running RAID 0
>would 5 drives be faster than 2?
>
>I am basically looking for a machine than will be approximately 30-40
>times faster than a AMD3000+ SATA RAID5 machine with 50GB database.
>
>Note Also; firebird.conf has all defaults.
>PageSize=8192. Buffers=65535
>
>
>

I still think like the others, present the slow query and the plan to
see if it's possible to optimze it...

I think RAID 0 will be faster than any other type of RAID, and that 5
discs will provide at least the double troughput than 2 discs.

FB will use the extra RAM (or the SO will benefit FB indirectly by the
OS cache)

What the "buffers= 65535" are you refering to ?

if it's the page buffers, reduce it to 10000, FB 1.5 will be slower with
more than 10000 pages.

Try increasing the pagesize to 16kb so you will reduce de index deep level.

But I think the first thing you should do is to look what is make the
whole process slow, If I were you I will focus my attention on this
before putting more hardware on the game.

Maybe denormalizing some tables could help too. But I am not fan of this
technique.

see you !

--

Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda.
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005