At 09:45 AM 14/07/2005 +0000, you wrote:

>Hi Pavel and Helen,
>
>I've set the buffer back to 75, stopped and restart my script.
>A bath... a snack... and 30 minutes later, this is the "top" output...
>
>30342 mling 15 0 48616 44m 2980 S 0.3 1.1 0:38.35 python
>30343 firebird 20 0 15000 12m 10m S 65.3 0.3 2:08.87
>fb_inet_server
>
>
>
>FB takes about too long and too much CPU to run, compared with the
>calling script.
>
>I do not know how to explain that the average load of my script is
>about 0.3-1.8% CPU while FB database access is 50-85% CPU load.
>
>Alright, when I used buffer size of 75 and running 3 scripts, the 3
>fb_inet_server processes run at 3 x 99.6% CPU load while my scripts
>run at 3 x 1.5% CPU load. When I increase the buffer to 40000, the FB
>processes uses about 3 x 70% CPU load with no change to my scripts'
>CPU usage.
>
>In comparison, mysqld (mysql daemon) runs at an average of 1.5% CPU load.
>
>To my system administrator, I am strongly advised to use a REAL
>DATABASE SERVER. Helen, I've been corresponding with you and you know
>I do like Firebird. I've even published a conference paper on it. But
>then, numbers for numbers, I will need to bring FB's CPU usage to less
>than 10%.
>
>Any insights?

Nope. Haven't heard a dicky-bird about what the database server is being
asked to do, or how intensively it's being asked to do it.

I'm baffled, though, as to why you think your Python client script and
(unspecified) operations being executed by Fb server processes should show
up with roughly equal CPU usage. Can you give *us* any insights on this
subject? What's your script telling the database to do? Do these
operations ever finish? etc., etc.

./hb