Hi,

This is cache problem of win64 not firebird itself. i do not remember link but try with google firebird eat whole memory or somethink like this.

Regards,
Karol Bieniaszewski

----- Reply message -----
Od: "Alexis Diel" <alexis_diel@...>
Do: <firebird-support@yahoogroups.com>
Temat: [firebird-support] firebird performance on xeon cpu
Data: śr., sie 28, 2013 04:50
I'm actually having this same problem with one of my clients. He have two

servers with x64 Windows and 8Gb of RAM. One of them is xp, the other is

seven. I tested Firebird 2.5.2 x32 and x64... change various configuration

and no success yet to reduce the consume of memory... that after a while

get between 80 and 90% and reduce the performance of the system

Em 27/08/2013 22:25, "安占江" <anzhanjiang@...> escreveu:

> **

>

>

> 于 2013年08月27日 23:53, Leyne, Sean 写道:

> >

> >

> >

> > > I have resolved this question.

> > > on disk driver property labels, I checked the close window cache on

> > disk,

> > > which is unchecked by default.

> > > but I don't known the reason.

> >

> > Actually, changing that setting is VERY DANGEROUS, it could lead to

> > database corruption!

> >

> > The setting tells the OS to assume that the device has a protected

> > cache (write-back), that will ensure that all writes will be persisted

> > to storage, even when the power is lost.

> >

> > This setting should only applies (be used) with disk controllers with

> > battery protection or SSDs with power failure protection.

> >

> > In your case, a single HDD will have limited performance, period. 83

> > IO/sec is not exactly great performance.

> >

> > Further, are you aware of the Windows page cache issues on x64

> > systems? It can make the system grind. FB v2.5.2 has a fix to help

> > address the issue, what version are you running?

> >

> > Sean

> >

> >

> first, I am sorry for my poor english.

>

> I known what mean of this option.

> I imagine the main reason is that intel raid chipset has some issues

> with this option on win7 os.

> I try two way to validate my guess.

> 1, use a memory dist to create fdb.

> 2, change storage protocal from sata/raid to ide /sata on bios setting..

> the two ways are natural.

>

> the fb v2.1 && v2.5.2 have been tested.

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]