Hi! It's complete nonsense, but did you try to put a database in a RAM disk? This would show the delay that actual secondary storage access costs in addition to primary storage access.
Regards, Ulrich >>> Andrew Eross <[email protected]> schrieb am 04.02.2014 um 21:52 in Nachricht <cal_tffdpyk-vepsypqsya1xsjdaoqhocs_sejoaf-noutxw...@mail.gmail.com>: > Thanks, Dieter, Quanah. > > I've been doing some experimenting with those mdb options. > > I ran a few tests with inserting 10,000 records, wiping the DB in between, > and changing just the one option at a time: > > Base-line, no extra options: 4m8s > With "writemap" enabled: 8m55s > With "writemap+mapasync" enabled: 5m12s > With "dbnosync+checkpoint 0kb/1min": 0m14s > > Oddly I didn't have much luck with writemap, which by default actually > slowed things down for me. > > The magic bullet of the bunch is dbnosync, which completed so quickly > because it didn't even hit the 1 minute mark where it would've written to > disk. > > That seems a bit risky to me, though. You'd have to be willing to have 1 > minute worth of data be theoretically expendable with that option. > > Cheers, > Andrew > > > Andrew Eross > CTO > Locatrix Communications > Office: +61 7 3123 1469 > Mobile: +55 37 9858 9815 > [email protected] > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Dieter Klünter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Am Tue, 4 Feb 2014 08:45:47 -0200 >> schrieb Andrew Eross <[email protected]>: >> >> > Thanks, Chris. >> > >> > Yeah, I hear you on that, but sorry, to be more specific, I was >> > running this test to get an idea of performance for regular LDAP use, >> > and slapadd is a purely offline solution. >> > >> > It would be helpful for a restore, of course, but not equivalent to >> > when our application will be adding/modifying records (which is what >> > I'm really trying to simulate). >> > >> > Running the same test of inserting 1M rows into postgres with the >> > same type of data record on the same machine goes about 3x faster, >> > which just doesn't sound right, since LDAP should be way faster than >> > Postgres, right? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Andrew >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Andrew Eross >> > CTO >> > Locatrix Communications >> > Office: +61 7 3123 1469 >> > Mobile: +55 37 9858 9815 >> > [email protected] >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Chris Card <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > ________________________________ >> > > >> > > > Hello all, >> > > > >> > > > I've been Google'ing around and searching the archives, but I >> > > > haven't quite been able to find an answer, so I wanted to ask the >> > > > list. >> > > > >> > > > I've been experimenting with OpenLDAP adds to see how quickly we >> > > > can get data inserted into the DB. >> > > > >> > > > I'm using Ubuntu 10.04, and I've tried both the packaged OpenLDAP >> > > > 2.4.21 using hdb, and just recently the latest OpenLDAP 2.4.39 >> > > > using lmdb, both with relatively similar results. >> > > > >> > > > The short version is: to insert 1 million records, it's taking >> > > > about 8 hours on a machine with 2GB RAM / 3Ghz / SSD, which seems >> > > > like a long time to me. >> > > > >> > > > The insert method is to use a single big ldiff file like this: >> >> You may have a look at this paper, helt at LDAPcon 2013 >> >> http://fr.slideshare.net/ldapcon/benchmarks-on-ldap-directories >> >> -Dieter >> >> -- >> Dieter Klünter | Systemberatung >> http://dkluenter.de >> GPG Key ID: E9ED159B >> 53°37'09,95"N >> 10°08'02,42"E >> >>
