Carrell Alex wrote:

> ...
> With page size of 4096
> - using a page size of 8192, the are better fill ratios, I changed
> it down, to save ram and use what was saved to lower the lock hash chains,
> allround performance improved. However for indexes the depth went up by 1,
> (not above 3) - I am tempted to go back to 8192, but the server will have to
> swap to cope(big slow down). We are looking at more ram. I asking these
> questions as in months time I will overhaul the servers.
>
> Database header page information:
> Flags 0
> Checksum 12345
> Generation 843404
> Page size 4096
> ODS version 10.1
> Oldest transaction 694109
> Oldest active 777945
> Oldest snapshot 694110
> Next transaction 843389
> Bumped transaction 1
> Sequence number 0
> Next attachment ID 0
> Implementation ID 19
> Shadow count 0
> Page buffers 15000
> Next header page 0
> Database dialect 1
> Creation date Aug 4, 2007 14:32:56
> ...
> A sweep fixed the above, the software is often terminated I think,
> transactions left to hang and some software left running for weeks
> I plan to improve query plans in longterm, I keep records of all long
> queries.
> Hth
>
> alex
> ...

You might test with PageSize=8192 and lowering PageBuffers to about
8000 - total RAM usage should be about the same as for
4096x15000. Anyway, more than about 10000 page buffers may not give
you any benefit (for fb/1.5.x).

--
Aage J.