Subject | Re: Performance of Firebird (Superserver vs Superclassic, etc.) |
---|---|
Author | |
Post date | 2014-11-03T11:01:30Z |
I also like to share my experience with FB 2.5 on Win 64.
I took a different path to optimazed FB performance.
From the very beginning I have choosed SC architecture for its multiple thread capability.
And these are the main setting in my db
- Page Buffers = 1024
- DefaultDbCachePages = 0
I set these parameters to its min value because Firebird database is placed on a RAM disk.
I predict my database size won't exceed 64GB and also I can upgrade CPU RAM up to 128GB.
With those setting, you have SC architecture with share cached like in SS.
CPU has a UPS and backup runs 3x times a days. It has been runs about 3 years without serious problems.
I don't know how its speed compared to database on a disk, but it is very fast.
Just for raw info, on SSD(sata 2), random read 4K +/- 18 MB/s, random write 4K +/- 52 MB/s.
On RAM, random read 4K +/- 1061 MB/s, random write 4K +/- 770 MB/s.
I took a different path to optimazed FB performance.
From the very beginning I have choosed SC architecture for its multiple thread capability.
And these are the main setting in my db
- Page Buffers = 1024
- DefaultDbCachePages = 0
I set these parameters to its min value because Firebird database is placed on a RAM disk.
I predict my database size won't exceed 64GB and also I can upgrade CPU RAM up to 128GB.
With those setting, you have SC architecture with share cached like in SS.
CPU has a UPS and backup runs 3x times a days. It has been runs about 3 years without serious problems.
I don't know how its speed compared to database on a disk, but it is very fast.
Just for raw info, on SSD(sata 2), random read 4K +/- 18 MB/s, random write 4K +/- 52 MB/s.
On RAM, random read 4K +/- 1061 MB/s, random write 4K +/- 770 MB/s.