Subject | Re: Firebird Server Config |
---|---|
Author | Stan |
Post date | 2006-08-03T18:10:34Z |
1. Linux or Windows?
linux is faster.
2. 50000 might be a bit too much, try 10000 pages.
3. What page-size are you using? try 8K.
4. SS only uses 1 cpu, but has less overhead and shares the cache
between requests.
Classic uses all available CPUs, but does not share the cache
and has an overhead of starting a new process for each
connection.
note: with 8k pages and 10000 buffers, SS will only use around 100MB
of ram.
--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "thefourie2000" <cfourie@...>
wrote:
linux is faster.
2. 50000 might be a bit too much, try 10000 pages.
3. What page-size are you using? try 8K.
4. SS only uses 1 cpu, but has less overhead and shares the cache
between requests.
Classic uses all available CPUs, but does not share the cache
and has an overhead of starting a new process for each
connection.
note: with 8k pages and 10000 buffers, SS will only use around 100MB
of ram.
--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "thefourie2000" <cfourie@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi all...
>
> I'm trying to get a Firebird 2.0 RC 3 server configured for best
> performance. I'm using SS at the present. With default config file.
> My DB was restored with -bu 50000 (this sets the number of page
> buffers to 50000 right?) The DB is quite small @ 300MB.
>
> Anyway the server currently uses about 500MB memory as soon as I
> connect with a client. The client is starting up 5 threads, each with
> it's own DB connection.
>
> What can I do to improve performance? Should I use super or classic?
> Accept that I need to get more memory :) Or maybe just restore db with
> smaller buffer size?
>
> I've got a AMD 4200X2 that I'd like to use to the full :D
>
> Any and all help would be appriciated.
> Cronje
>