Well, certainly there is a lack on processor to this app.

More processors will help, but remember that your app must be prepared to use mult threads on CPUs at the same time; is possible to do this work from other computers too, but depend if the massive processament isn't from stored procedures from firebird. To do the work that you thinking if all the lack is on the processor, than really will be used 4 processors, maybe more... Take care with the temperature too.

If the kind of app is that without mult threads so more processors sometimes don't give more results.

To your app call the threads with eficiency and the data run fast, remember that the main board must offer high bandwidth.

Yes, if the mass transit from HD is very high, the system with 4 SCSI drivers will be better, much more throughput, but will be necessary some study about what RAID system to use. Choose a good card to your SCSI interfaces too. See some comparisions about some HDs:
[IDE] SIMPLE
ATA33 - 10GB 5400RPM - 0,5 MB -> 8000 kB/s
ATA66 - 28GB 7200RPM - 2MB -> 15000 kB/s
ATA100 - 30GB 7200RPM - 2MB -> 24000 kB/s
ATA 100 - 80GB 7200RPM - 2MB -> 29200 kB/s
[SATA] SIMPLE
SATA150 - 120GB 7200 - 8MB -> 29500 kB/s
[SCSI] SIMPLE
SCSI U160 - 36GB 10000RPM - 8MB -> 34080 kB/s
SCSI U320 - 147GB 15000RPM - 8MB -> 52610 kB/S
[SATA and SCSI] ON Raid 0 SYSTEMS
SATA150 - 4XRaid0 - 36GB 1000RPM 8MB -> 99800 kB/s
SCSI U320 - 2XRaid0 - 73GB 15000 RPM 8MB -> 93376 kB/s
SATA150 - 2XRaid0 - 36GB 1000 RPM 8MB -> 61488 kB/s.

I don't have the test to 4XRAid0 on SCSI U320...and some these tests i think is from the IB6 guide. If others persons have something is interisting for us too...

About the RAM, sometimes more RAM do not do difference. If your app is prepared to allocate the RAM, so more RAM is good. And the ECC RAM is better to evite some problems.
I don't know about the firebird engine, how much RAM it can take to help you, but look for on the guides and if other friend know about, post something to help...

if you can, is important to study the routines from de app, the calcs and the SQL instructions, if is possible to optimize..

A machine 30x fastest than your, isn't these yet... I think this is about 12x, depending what is the actual main board.

Good work :-)

Roberto Novakosky

----- Original Message -----
From: ak_s13
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 8:29 PM
Subject: [firebird-support] Re: Hardware recommendations



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


--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Roberto Novakosky"
<rnovak@i...> wrote:
> When the system is running to recalculate, is your processor at
100% ?
> Give more detail about the main board too, what the model.
> And is it running on Win 2000, or other O.S. ?
> Are they using interfaces SATA from main board or from a controler
board PCI ?
>
>
> Roberto Novakosky
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ak_s13
> To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:41 PM
> Subject: [firebird-support] Hardware recommendations
>
>
>
> We using firebird for a multi-store retail reporting application.
>
> One of our clients is running a system with PC hardware;
> AMD 3000+, 2Gig RAM, SATA RAID5.
>
> We have a proccess that re-calculates consolidated report totals
> based on new department structure changes. This is taking over a
week
> to complete on their database (approx. 50Gb).
>
> My question;
> What hardware would could you recommend to allow this process to
> complete in 4-6hours?
>
>
> Thanks in Advance.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]