Re: [firebird-support] log each request

2015-01-05 Thread Mark Rotteveel m...@lawinegevaar.nl [firebird-support]
On 05 Jan 2015 10:18:22 -0800, darek.stroje...@yahoo.com
[firebird-support] firebird-support@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 Hi.
  How can I configure the server to logging every question directed to
the
  server

You can use the trace facility:
http://www.firebirdsql.org/file/documentation/release_notes/html/rlsnotes253_upd1.html#rnfb25-trace

Mark


Re: [firebird-support] Re: Bad surprise on performance

2015-01-05 Thread André Knappstein knappst...@beta-eigenheim.de [firebird-support]

Thank you very much for the advice, Hannes.

I did   not   think   of   this too well. But of course this sounds very
logical.   I  will  re-configure  the server to match the most popular
database page size (I have 6 different databases).

I will first consult different papers I have from conferences
and some available other documentation, and then decide what will be a
good page size for my scenario after the migration.

thanks,
André


=
Ihre Nachricht:
 Guten Tag André Knappstein knappst...@beta-eigenheim.de [firebird-support],

 am Samstag, 3. Januar 2015 um 10:45 schrieben Sie:

 Stripe  size  is  64K, btw.
 much too big , best size for a stripset ist same as DB Page Size

 Strip Set 64Kb means that the controller will read and write Blocks of 64KB 
 each I/O operation
 with a page size of 4 KB  60 KB are moved around with no use ,
 wasting more then 90 percent of the disk read/write bandwidth
 (disk caches will reduce the impact somewhat)

 my LSI Controller allows me a stripeset as small as 16kb , so it set my page 
 size to match





Re: [firebird-support] How To Build on OS X : Firebird Framework not found on Mavericks ?

2015-01-05 Thread David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com [firebird-support]
On Nov 20, 2013, at 12:00 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com wrote:


 Rather confused by ld can't find the Firebird framework. Here are the full 
 details from my build attempt:
 
 https://gist.github.com/theory/7567043


I found the solution today thanks to [this Ruby fb 
report](https://github.com/rowland/fb/issues/22): This installation requires 
the Xcode comamnd-line tools. Just run this to install them:


  xcode-select --install


Once that finished, I was able to build and install DBD::Firebird it without 
issue.


Thanks,


David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Re: [firebird-support] Check constraints vs. user defined triggers

2015-01-05 Thread Aldo Caruso aldo.car...@argencasas.com [firebird-support]

Hi Ann,

I ran a test and there is no performance difference, so I'll keep 
using check constraints as they are simpler.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Aldo

El 04/01/15 a las 15:31, Ann Harrison aharri...@ibphoenix.com 
[firebird-support] escibió:




 On Dec 29, 2014, at 9:56 PM, Aldo Caruso aldo.car...@argencasas.com 
[firebird-support] firebird-support@yahoogroups.com wrote:


No one has answered, so I'll offer a not-very interesting suggestion.

 I have a table with four check constraints, which basically check
 logical conditions between its fields.

 In order to enforce those constraints, Firebird creates behind the
 scenes two triggers for each one of them (I suppose one for update and
 the other for insert operation). So in this case it ends up with eight
 system created triggers.

 I suppose this degradates performance of massive insert or updates, as
 four triggers have to be launched for each insert or update operation.

Triggers aren't launched like separate programs, but get incorporated 
in the compiled request so eight small triggers have about the same 
performance impact as one large trigger.


 Does it have sense in order to enhace performance not to use check
 contraints but instead check those constraints globally using only two
 user defined triggers (before insert and before update), raising
 exceptions when logical conditions aren't met ?

 Is it worthwhile ? Which are the pros and cons of this approach ?

In your situation, I'd build a test and measure the diffence in 
performance of the two approaches, even though in theory there 
shouldn't be much.


Good luck,

Ann






[firebird-support] log each request

2015-01-05 Thread darek.stroje...@yahoo.com [firebird-support]
Hi.
 How can I configure the server to logging every question directed to the 
server 
  


Re: [firebird-support] Bad surprise on performance

2015-01-05 Thread Hugo Eyng hugoe...@msn.com [firebird-support]
Hello.

FB 2.5.3 works (for me)  on Win Server 2008 R2 Enterprise 64 bits, and 
others version of Win Server 2008 too.

Dell R620 32GB RAM Intel Xeon E-2609.

Hugo

On 02/01/2015 22:08, André Knappstein knappst...@beta-eigenheim.de 
[firebird-support] wrote:
 Fascinating...
 I created a test table on both old and new server to play with updates
 and  inserts (~ 150.000 records)
 Performance  with  2.5.3  x64  on Win2008 is constantly
 changing, but at best its some 8 seconds and worst even 2 minutes!
 Performance  with  1.5.4  x86 on Win2003 is always about the same, and
 always 2.9 - 3.2 seconds.

 My next steps will be:
 - get some sleep
 - reduce example to a database with only this one testtable
 -  install  2.5.3  on  2  other new servers (different RAIDs) and test
 there
 - test also with 2.5.3 CS x86, 2.5.3 SS x64/x86, 1.5.4 CS x86
 -  fire myself before presenting bill for new server to my boss unless
 I find a solution

 If  somebody  *KNOWS*  for  sure  that  Firebird  just  won't  work on
 Server2008,  or  if someone knows for sure that it does, please drop a
 note.


 Query
 
 update X3058000 x
 set
x.p3058_004n = (x.p3058_004n * 2)

 Plan
 
 PLAN (X NATURAL)


 Query Time (new Server))
 
 Prepare   : 0,00 ms
 Execute   : 30.781,00 ms
 Avg fetch time: 0,00 ms

 Query Time (old Server)
 
 Prepare   : 15,00 ms
 Execute   : 3.110,00 ms
 Avg fetch time: 0,00 ms


 Memory (new Server)
 
 Current: 10.412.912
 Max: 10.504.672
 Buffers: 2.048

 Memory (old Server)
 
 Current: 5.887.792
 Max: 6.158.624
 Buffers: 2.048


 Operations (new Server)
 
 Read   : 2.247
 Writes : 5.960
 Fetches: 2.476.240
 Marks  : 807.922

 Operations (old Server)
 
 Read   : 8.516
 Writes : 6.084
 Fetches: 1.602.243
 Marks  : 582.584




 mit freundlichen Grüßen,

 ppa. André Knappstein
 EDV und Controlling
 ~~
 beta Eigenheim- und Grundstücksverwertungsgesellschaft mbH
 Hafenweg 4
 59192 Bergkamen-Rünthe

 Telefon: +49 2389 9240 140
 Telefax: +49 2389 9240 150
 e-mail:  knappst...@beta-eigenheim.de

 Amtsgericht Hamm Nr. B 420
 Geschäftsführer: Achim Krähling, Dirk Salewski und Matthias Steinhaus

 USt-IDNr.: DE 125215402


 =
 Ihre Nachricht:
 Hey! Happy new year to all!
 For   me,   it   should  have  started  with  something  great, new...
 FINALLY! The migration from FB 1.5 to 2.5 (trust me, I had reasons not
 to do it earlier). But now the old appications are all gone, and I can
 migrate.
 Seems there will be a delay. I migrated the database from old hardware
 running 1.5.4 to new hardware running 2.5.3. Backup/Restore is about 4
 times faster. Wow!
 But normal working is - at least - 50% slower sometimes worse.
 I  already scanned the newsgroups and noticed that other users had the
 same  problem,  but  none of them seems to have found a good solution.
 For me - being only a part time wannabe administrator - I really don't
 have a clue where to start looking.
 Here are some details of the 2 systems; if anybody can point me into a
 direction  where to look first it would be most welcome.
 [Old]
 Server 2003 x86 no service packs
 Xeon with 4 GB RAM
 Classic 1.5.4 (x86, of course)
 Raid  0  on  2  *  500 GB SAS (though this is from memory, I should look it
 up...)
 [new]
 Server 2008 R2 x64 SP1
 Xeon with 8 GB RAM (I will shortly add +8)
 Classic 2.5.3 x64
 Raid 0 on 3 * 600 GB SAS
 In comparison to what I read from others, my databases are small.
 Biggest database is some 1 GB only.
 Bad  performance  on updates and inserts and extremely bad performance
 on committing a big number of record changes (~ 150.000 updates).
 Database  has  4096  Page  Size  and  2048  buffers (which sounds like
 setting  for  SS  but  I  specifically  set  it higher to use more RAM
 according to a hint from experts).
 While   testing  the  configuration,  nobody  is in the network.
 Firebird runs on dedicated server (just windows and Firebird).
 where to look?



 mit freundlichen Grüßen,
 ppa. André Knappstein
 EDV und Controlling
 ~~
 beta Eigenheim- und Grundstücksverwertungsgesellschaft mbH
 Hafenweg 4
 59192 Bergkamen-Rünthe
 Telefon: +49 2389 9240 140
 Telefax: +49 2389 9240 150
 e-mail:  knappst...@beta-eigenheim.de
 Amtsgericht Hamm Nr. B 420
 Geschäftsführer: Achim Krähling, Dirk Salewski und Matthias Steinhaus
 USt-IDNr.: DE 125215402