Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [firebird-support] Re: Linux vs Windows performance FB 2.1

Expand Messages
  • Claudio Romero
    Check the DefaultDbCachePages per connection CS = 75 and SS = 2048 You should use the same Firebird version for the test (ej both SuperServer) in Linux and
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 1 4:01 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Check the DefaultDbCachePages per connection
      CS = 75
      and
      SS = 2048

      You should use the same Firebird version for the test (ej both SuperServer)
      in Linux and Windows.

      Regards


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Carlos H. Cantu
      AF I, as much as you, was surprised by that. This benchmark has AF cleared for me why my application runs slower on a Linux machine AF even the hardware
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 1 4:48 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        AF> I, as much as you, was surprised by that. This benchmark has
        AF> cleared for me why my application runs slower on a Linux machine
        AF> even the hardware being beter than a Windows box.

        My experience shows the inverse. Many times, FB is faster on Linux.
        When this doesn't happen, I guess the problem is not really Firebird,
        but the fact that too few people knows how to fine-tune a linux
        server (I'm not a linux guru either).

        Probably Milan or Alex can comment about this benchmark, since they
        have much more experience with Linux.

        []s
        Carlos
        Firebird Performance in Detail - http://videos.firebirddevelopersday.com
        www.firebirdnews.org - www.FireBase.com.br
      • Anderson Farias
        Hi Carlos, ... Well, maybe one needs a great linux guru to setup a linux box for Firebird. But that does not help much. Windows would be better anyway, couse
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 1 5:09 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Carlos,


          |My experience shows the inverse. Many times, FB is faster on Linux.
          |When this doesn't happen, I guess the problem is not really Firebird,
          |but the fact that too few people knows how to fine-tune a linux
          |server (I'm not a linux guru either).

          Well, maybe one needs a great linux guru to setup a linux box for Firebird. But that does not help much. Windows would be better anyway, couse it runs faster out of the box.

          I have aways told my clients to use Linux over Windows for anything (file sharing, web server, etc). I do feel a lot more confortable with Linux since I have more experience with it, I now nothing on Windows tunning/settup AND I find linux overall performance better for most tasks.

          Unfortunatly I haven't experienced this performance with Firbird (at least using EXT file systems, never tested FB with another one).

          Anyway, this is just out of experience, I do not have numbers. But, that benchmark sort of shows what I have experienced. I still plan on running my own benchmark so I can compare and talk about numbers.

          There may be some special settings to use FB faster on Linux, I hope some day I find what are they.


          Regards,
          Anderson
















          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Carlos H. Cantu
          AF Unfortunatly I haven t experienced this performance with Firbird AF (at least using EXT file systems, never tested FB with another one). If my memory is
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 1 5:45 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            AF> Unfortunatly I haven't experienced this performance with Firbird
            AF> (at least using EXT file systems, never tested FB with another one).

            If my memory is not failing, I remember Milan Babuskov compared some
            linux file systems in some of his talks in some of the past
            international conferences. You may try to find the slides, or even ask
            him about any tips.

            Carlos
            Firebird Performance in Detail - http://videos.firebirddevelopersday.com
            www.firebirdnews.org - www.FireBase.com.br
          • Cesar Meloni
            In addition to using the same version of Firebird server on both OSes, it s important that the configuration is the same. Like Force write. Greetings Cesar L.
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 1 7:04 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              In addition to using the same version of Firebird server on both OSes,
              it's important
              that the configuration is the same. Like Force write.

              Greetings

              Cesar L. Meloni

              2011/3/1 Carlos H. Cantu <listas@...>

              >
              >
              > AF> Unfortunatly I haven't experienced this performance with Firbird
              > AF> (at least using EXT file systems, never tested FB with another one).
              >
              > If my memory is not failing, I remember Milan Babuskov compared some
              > linux file systems in some of his talks in some of the past
              > international conferences. You may try to find the slides, or even ask
              > him about any tips.
              >
              > Carlos
              > Firebird Performance in Detail - http://videos.firebirddevelopersday.com
              > www.firebirdnews.org - www.FireBase.com.br
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Anderson Farias
              Hi Cesar, ... Yes. Regards, Anderson
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 1 10:03 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Cesar,


                > In addition to using the same version
                > of Firebird server on both OSes,
                > it's important
                > that the configuration is the same. Like Force write.

                Yes.



                Regards,
                Anderson
              • Anderson Farias
                Hi Carlos, ... Thanks for pointing this out. I ve seen some tests over different Linux file systems and it showed not much difference that s why I ve never
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 1 10:10 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Carlos,

                  |If my memory is not failing, I remember Milan Babuskov compared some
                  |linux file systems in some of his talks in some of the past
                  |international conferences. You may try to find the slides, or even ask
                  |him about any tips.


                  Thanks for pointing this out.

                  I've seen some tests over different Linux file systems and it showed not much difference that's why I've never tryed changing from EXT (just did some tunning on EXT)

                  I can't remember now if it was Milan's work but it is worth revisiting it.


                  Regards,
                  Anderson
















                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Kok_BG
                  ... Today i checked with: XFS,JFS,EXT4, Reiserfs All except Reiserfs (which is significant faster) are slower than EXT3. Don t know exactly how much, because i
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 1 3:29 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > It seems that is file system problem. I will check with XFS !

                    Today i checked with: XFS,JFS,EXT4, Reiserfs
                    All except Reiserfs (which is significant faster) are slower than EXT3. Don't know exactly how much, because i stopped the test when the time was over the time of EXT3.


                    The key seems to be DefaultDbCachePages as Claudio wrote. Increasing its value has dramatic performance increasing for the long time HDD operations.

                    So i am keep using Linux ;)

                    Thanks to all !
                  • Philippe Makowski
                    2011/3/1 Anderson Farias ... FIle system and scheduler matter see http://www.ibphoenix.com/resources/documents/search/doc_26
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 2 12:31 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      2011/3/1 Anderson Farias <peixedragao@...>
                      >
                      > According to this benchmark
                      >
                      > http://firebirdsurgeon.blogspot.com/2009/11/firebird-25-benchmark-firebird-shows.html
                      >
                      > Firebird is a lot slower on Linux boxes.
                      >
                      FIle system and scheduler matter
                      see http://www.ibphoenix.com/resources/documents/search/doc_26
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.