RE: [ZODB-Dev] ZEO LoadEx?

2006-06-21 Thread Pascal Peregrina
. Pascal -Message d'origine- De : Chris Withers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : mercredi 21 juin 2006 11:19 À : Pascal Peregrina Cc : zodb-dev; Tim Peters Objet : Re: [ZODB-Dev] ZEO LoadEx? Pascal Peregrina wrote: We located it by hacking the ClientStorage code in order to display

Re: [ZODB-Dev] ZEO LoadEx?

2006-06-21 Thread Dieter Maurer
Chris Withers wrote at 2006-6-20 07:31 +0100: ... But, there also seems to be (to my untrained eye) random periods of slowness from then onwards, again, without any apparent signs of excess load, memory usage or disk i/o. I'm somewhat flumoxed as to where to go from here on the debugging

Re: [ZODB-Dev] ZEO LoadEx?

2006-06-20 Thread Chris Withers
Tim Peters wrote: Sure, but no way to guess from here. The only thing I can really guess from the above is that your client is going to the server a lot to get data. Well, the client and the server are on the same machine, which isn't load or memory bound, and doesn't seem to be i/o bound

RE: [ZODB-Dev] ZEO LoadEx?

2006-06-20 Thread Pascal Peregrina
to change the structure to BTree. Pascal -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Chris Withers Envoyé : mardi 20 juin 2006 08:31 À : Tim Peters Cc : zodb-dev Objet : Re: [ZODB-Dev] ZEO LoadEx? Tim Peters wrote: Sure, but no way to guess from

Re: [ZODB-Dev] ZEO LoadEx?

2006-06-20 Thread Chris Withers
Pascal Peregrina wrote: This reminds me something I noticed when we migrated from 2.7 to 2.8 Well, it's 2.7 to 2.9 here, but yeah, it's the same big jump ;-) Our issue was a very big PersistentMapping based tree of objects, which was involved in a lot of RW and RO transactions from

RE: [ZODB-Dev] ZEO LoadEx?

2006-06-20 Thread Pascal Peregrina
. Pascal -Message d'origine- De : Chris Withers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : mardi 20 juin 2006 10:32 À : Pascal Peregrina Cc : Tim Peters; zodb-dev Objet : Re: [ZODB-Dev] ZEO LoadEx? Pascal Peregrina wrote: This reminds me something I noticed when we migrated from 2.7 to 2.8 Well