> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> If you put client/server on the same machine, then we don't know how
> CPU is splitted. Can you take a look at the approximate number by
> observing the task manager data while running?
ok, I generated a test case which was 250k inserts to simple two column
table all in single transaction. Every 50k inserts, time is recorded
Running from remote, Time progression is:
First 50k: 20 sec
Second : 29 sec
final: : 66 sec
so, clear upward progression of time/rec. Initial time is 2.5k
inserts/sec which is decent but not great for such a narrow table. CPU
time on server starts around 50% and drops in exact proportion to insert
performance. My earlier gprof test also suggest there is no smoking gun
sucking down all the cpu time.
cpu time on the client is very volatile but with a clear increase over
time starting around 20 and ending perhaps 60. My client box is pretty
quick, 3ghz p4.
Running the script locally, from the server, cpu time is pegged at 100%
and stays...first 50k is 23 sec with a much worse decomposition to
almost three minutes for final 50k.
> If communication code is the suspect, can we measure the difference if
> disable the redefinition of recv()/send() etc in port/win32.h (may
> change related code a little bit as well). In this way, the socket
> not be able to pickup signals, but let see if there is any performance
> difference first.
> > [OK, I'm bringing this back on-list, and bringing it to QingQing's
> > attention, who I secretly hope is the right person to be looking at
> > problem :)]
> P.s. You scared me ;-)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly