17.10.2013 12:15, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
> No.
> Very small.
Buffer size has effect on fast query + latent (but wide) channel + fast
client because
it decreases number of round-trips. Otherwise network waits will be beyond
recognition.
--
WBR, SD.
On 10/17/13 14:04, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 17.10.2013 11:13, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
>> I've tried to test fb3. I see no perf difference between 2K and 32K buffers.
> Was channel latency high enough?
>
No.
Very small.
--
17.10.2013 11:13, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
> I've tried to test fb3. I see no perf difference between 2K and 32K buffers.
Was channel latency high enough?
--
WBR, SD.
--
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Int
On 10/17/13 12:36, marius adrian popa wrote:
> Isn't the recent kernels do autotuning for tcp buffer sizes ?
> http://fasterdata.es.net/host-tuning/background/#t1
It's not related to our internal buffer size.
--
October
On 10/16/13 18:41, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
> Server x Client
> 8K 8K
> 8K 16K
> 8K 32K
> 32K 8K
> 32K 32K
>
> The fetch times were almost identical in all the above configurations
> :(
>
> The number of records returned was about 3.500, and average time was
> about 11 se
On 10/16/13 18:41, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
> Is there any chance that FB 2.5.1 is ignoring this parameter?
"Any" chance is always present, but looking at the code I can hardly
imagine that parameter is ignored.
> How to
> explain such different behavior compared to the last year test (FB 2.1)
>
Isn't the recent kernels do autotuning for tcp buffer sizes ?
http://fasterdata.es.net/host-tuning/background/#t1
The max size still can be usefull but we need to see it with real tests
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
> On 10/16/13 19:04, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
>> 16.
On 10/16/13 19:04, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 16.10.2013 17:01, Leyne, Sean wrote:
>> Is this buffer size setting configurable thru a connection/API setting?
> AFAIK, no.
>
It's possible to make it configurable in FB3 at the client side. At the
server side we must first allocate some buffer
I really dont remember if I was able to retest with > 32K, but I found
this message that suggests that the effect of changing this parameter
is different with FB 2.5 compared to 2.1:
- 21-Dec-2011
I ran more tests tonight, and results were very different from the
past year test
16.10.2013 17:01, Leyne, Sean wrote:
> Is this buffer size setting configurable thru a connection/API setting?
AFAIK, no.
--
WBR, SD.
--
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you acce
> 16.10.2013 14:58, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
> > Telling true I do not remember it...
> > But quite possible.
>
>Most likely my memory doesn't serve me well. Google shows me only
> thread where Carlos H. Cantu tested it up to current limit and got 3x speed
> up, then DE suggested to test it beyo
16.10.2013 14:58, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
> Telling true I do not remember it...
> But quite possible.
Most likely my memory doesn't serve me well. Google shows me only thread
where Carlos
H. Cantu tested it up to current limit and got 3x speed up, then DE suggested
to test it
beyond the limit
On 10/16/13 13:25, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> Hello, All.
>
> IIRC, couple of years ago Alex tested effect of increasing
> TcpRemoteBufferSize
Telling true I do not remember it...
But quite possible.
> to
> network performance and the tests showed that size 1M results in significant
>
Hello, All.
IIRC, couple of years ago Alex tested effect of increasing
TcpRemoteBufferSize to
network performance and the tests showed that size 1M results in significant
performance
boost for applications that fetch large volumes of data.
But in current firebird.conf in 3.0 I still s
14 matches
Mail list logo
