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
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to