We have experienced similar results when trying to upgrade to 2.5.2 SuperClassic on a Windows 2008 R2 Server. Are there any tools available to track the performance of firebird applications?

--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "randallsell" <randallsell@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I recently upgraded FB from 2.1.5 to 2.5.1. In order to port data we essentially write the contents of the database to a file, then read it back in again. In short, this amounts to many thousands of INSERT statements. (Yes I know how to use GBak, this process was designed to make metadata mods easy).
>
> Anyway, this process has been working nicely for many years, and I expected that the performance of 2.5 would be more or less on par with 2.1, possibly better (SMP, SuperClassic). But it isn't. In fact it ranges from 25% worse to 4x worse (400%). So I thought I'd raise the issue. I'm sure a bunch of nay-sayers will argue that my tests are invalid, blah blah. But rest assured I ran my tests many times over on the same machine to ensure the results are accurate. And the only things varied in the tests were the backend server version / architecture / Forced-Writes. Front-end app and import file always the same.
>
> Here are the results of the import runs:
>
> FB 2.1.5 SuperServer Force-Writes Off 3 min 40 sec
> FB 2.1.5 SuperServer Force-Writes On 7 min 15 sec
>
> FB 2.5.1 SuperServer Force-Writes Off 4 min 30 sec
> FB 2.5.1 SuperServer Force-Writes On NOT TESTED
>
> FB 2.5.1 SuperClassic Force-Writes Off 17 min 35 sec
> FB 2.5.1 SuperClassic Force-Writes On 20 minutes 4 seconds
>
> So a pure upgrade from 2.1 to 2.5 (same SuperServer architecture) made the process 25% slower (looking at Forced Writes Off only). The real killer above is the new SuperClassic architecture. OK sure this test should have absoluely no benefit from SuperClassic since it is a single threaded app throwing INSERT statements to the server. But over 4x worse performance?!?! That's a serious performance hit!
>
> FWIW, the firebird.conf is the same for all test cases (well the same less changes made between 2.1 and 2.5). The critical settings (modified from their default values) are these:
>
> CpuAffinityMask = 7
> MaxUnflushedWrites = 200
> MaxUnflushedWriteTime = 10
>
> Has anyone else experienced performance degredation with FB 2.5? Although I would love to take advantage of some of the new features of 2.5, the poor performance has me going back to 2.1 for now.
>
> regards,
> -randall sell
>