Subject | Is faster hardisk really a matter for Firebird performance? |
---|---|
Author | trskopo |
Post date | 2011-10-28T01:56:03Z |
Hi all,
I just doing a little experiment to find out database performance on RAM vs on Disk.
I use WD SATA 2 Green, 64MB cache for testing. My RAM speed is about 35x faster than disk.
I have 2 databases (size is about 75 MB), one placed on a RAM and the other on disk, then I run select sql for both databases
SQL Statement finished about 47 seconds, on RAM and on disk. So there is no significant performance between RAM and disk.
Performance on RAM shows when doing backup or restore routine.
So I wonder, could it be that there is no need for faster hardisk when using firebird?
Thanks and best regards,
Incendio
I just doing a little experiment to find out database performance on RAM vs on Disk.
I use WD SATA 2 Green, 64MB cache for testing. My RAM speed is about 35x faster than disk.
I have 2 databases (size is about 75 MB), one placed on a RAM and the other on disk, then I run select sql for both databases
SQL Statement finished about 47 seconds, on RAM and on disk. So there is no significant performance between RAM and disk.
Performance on RAM shows when doing backup or restore routine.
So I wonder, could it be that there is no need for faster hardisk when using firebird?
Thanks and best regards,
Incendio