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 [email protected], "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 >
