On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:03:54AM -0400, Marius Gedminas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:32:53PM +0200, Ingvar Hagelund wrote: > > We have an solution based on a third party zope based framework, with 12 > > Zope instances accessing ZODB via ZEO. > ... > > Now, writing to the ZEO database is very slow, and the same goes for > > searching, which is a problem for the users that put information into > > the solution. > ... > > We want to sort out if there are any obvious data points on tuning ZEO > > that we have missed, or that there are errors or corruption in the database. > ... > > Software environment: ZEO from Zope 2.10.3, python-2.4.4, Debian > > GNU/Linux, Data.fs on ext3 filesystem > > ZEO had a bug, fixed in rev 73871, where it would spend up to 10ms (your > OSes scheduling timeslice) in idle sleep for every object received from > the ZEO server, resulting in very long request processing times on an > otherwise idle server, if a request had to load hundreds or thousands of > persistent objects.
No kidding?? I bet that was a factor in the benchmark results I saw a few years ago: loading an uncached, largish OFS.Image.File instance would take an order of magnitude longer from ZEO on localhost compared to FileStorage. See the end of http://slinkp.com/code/zopestuff/blobnotes/ I've just updated that page with new results at the bottom: ZEO performance for OFS.Image.* classes is still a bit slower, but now much closer to FileStorage speed. The relevant fix appears to have made it into both the Zope 2.10 branch (see r73967) and 2.11. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev