Subject | RE: [firebird-support] Multiple CPUs |
---|---|
Author | Bob Murdoch |
Post date | 2005-04-21T17:00Z |
Chad,
process will ping-pong between the 4 logical processors, decreasing
performance dramatically (although I have heard that some do not see
this problem).
You will want to update the config file to set the CPUAffinityMask to
a single processor, or as in my case, convert to Classic. I have had
tremendous success with this. We had periodic problems on a single
processor system where a long-running query would slow or block other
users. Since switching to Classic, we have not had that problem.
The only problem that I have found is that Classic will prevent you
from recompiling stored procedures, if any of the existing connections
have touched the SP. My assumption is that it's not enough for that
connection to have committed the transaction that used the SP. The
connection must be closed altogether. The good news is that is the
only problem I've encountered since switching early last year.
Bob M..
> -----Original Message-----I have the same configuration on one of my servers. With SS, the main
> From: Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu [mailto:chad-jm@...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:13 PM
>
>
> I know in the past there were some issues with multiple
> CPU's. We have FB 1.5, super server and a Pentium Xeon dual
> CPU (4 logical).
>
> Has this been addressed? And if not what is the exact issue?
process will ping-pong between the 4 logical processors, decreasing
performance dramatically (although I have heard that some do not see
this problem).
You will want to update the config file to set the CPUAffinityMask to
a single processor, or as in my case, convert to Classic. I have had
tremendous success with this. We had periodic problems on a single
processor system where a long-running query would slow or block other
users. Since switching to Classic, we have not had that problem.
The only problem that I have found is that Classic will prevent you
from recompiling stored procedures, if any of the existing connections
have touched the SP. My assumption is that it's not enough for that
connection to have committed the transaction that used the SP. The
connection must be closed altogether. The good news is that is the
only problem I've encountered since switching early last year.
Bob M..