| Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Re: Sizing a dedicated Firebird server (Linux) |
|---|---|
| Author | Milan Babuskov |
| Post date | 2010-11-04T10:47:01Z |
vladman992000 wrote:
matter that much because Linux has excellent file-system cache built
into the kernel. Some of my benchmarks show that it is faster than
Firebird's cache most of the time, so I keep FB page cache to a minimum.
I believe recent FB 2.5 benchmark done by Dmitry Yemanov also gets to
the same conclusion.
--
Milan Babuskov
==================================
The easiest way to import XML, CSV
and textual files into Firebird:
http://www.guacosoft.com/xmlwizard
==================================
>> How big are the databases?That still does not answer the question. How big are the database files?
>
> Most of the databases have around 100 or so tables, and data sizes are typically between 1-500,000 rows per table. Some tables have as many as 30 or so fields, although I've managed to normalize as much of the design to keep this down. There is no use of BLOBs in there - but some text fields can be large (ie. the odd table has 30,000 character sized VARCHAR fields in there for textual content).
>If all your queries are short and fast then SS is the best choice.
>>> a. 50 concurrent queries
>>> b. 100 concurrent queries
>>> c. 150 concurrent queries
>> This mostly depends on the server model you choose (CS,SS,SC) and the
>> values you set up firebird.conf for cache.
>
> Normally I'm running SuperServer by default here, but if there is a more optimized way by using a different model, I can change for that.
>> The system is AMD Athlon64 X2 DualCore 5600. Not really state of theYes, 64bit CentOS 5.5
>> art. I would pick 4 or 8-core Intel i7 if I had bigger needs (and
>> budget). There are two 500GB Samsung HD501LJ SATA disks in RAID-1.
>>
>> On this hardware, the system load is around 1.30 on average, and peaks
>> at about 2.50 during a busy day.
>
> Is that running Linux?
> how much memory do you have installed in that server?I believe I wrote that above, it's 2GB.
> particularly if you feel that loading indexes into memory will increase performance.If you use Linux, and this is a dedicated server, than it does not
matter that much because Linux has excellent file-system cache built
into the kernel. Some of my benchmarks show that it is faster than
Firebird's cache most of the time, so I keep FB page cache to a minimum.
I believe recent FB 2.5 benchmark done by Dmitry Yemanov also gets to
the same conclusion.
--
Milan Babuskov
==================================
The easiest way to import XML, CSV
and textual files into Firebird:
http://www.guacosoft.com/xmlwizard
==================================