Running your test script on my small amazon EC2 instance on linux
takes between 0.0 and 0.04 seconds (I had to remove the divide by
total to avoid a zero division error). 0.02 is 5000/s.


On 14 April 2010 00:25, Nitro <> wrote:
>>>> 40 tps sounds low:  are you pushing blob content over the wire somehow?
>> I have seen the ZEO storage committing transactions at least an order of
>> magnitude faster than that (e.g., when processing incoming newswire
>> feeds).  I would guess that there could have been some other latencies
>> involved in your setup (e.g., that 0-100ms lag you mention below).
> See my attached test script. It outputs 45-55 transactions/s for 100 byte
> sized payload. Maybe there's a very fundamental flaw in the way the test is
> setup. Note that I am testing on a regular desktop machine (Windows 7,
> WoW64, 4GB RAM, 1TB hard disk capable of transfer rates >100MB/s).
>>> The zeo server and clients will be in different physical locations, so
>>> I'd
>>> probably have to employ some shared filesystem which can deal with that.
>>> Speaking of locations of server and clients, is it a problem - as in zeo
>>> will perform very badly under these circumstances as it was not designed
>>> for this - if they are not in the same location (typical latency
>>> 0-100ms)?
>> That depends on the mix of reads and writes in your application.  I have
>> personnally witnessed a case where the clients stayed up and serving
>> pages over a whole weekend in a clusterfsck where both the ZEO server
>> and the monitoring infrastructure went belly up.  This was for a large
>> corporate intranet, in case that helps:  the problem surfaced
>> mid-morning on Monday when the employee in charge of updating the lunch
>> menu for the week couldn't save the changes.
> Haha, I hope they solved this critical problem in time!
>>> In my case the clients might be down for a couple of days (typically 1 or
>>> 2 days) and they should not spend 30 mins in cache verification time each
>>> time they reconnect. So if these 300k objects take up 1k each, then they
>>> occupy 300 MB of ram which I am fine with.
>> If the client is disconnected for any period of time, it is far more
>> likely that just dumping the cache and starting over fresh will be a
>> win.  The 'invalidation_queue' is primarily to support clients which
>> remain up while the storage server is down or unreachable.
> Yes, taking the verification time hit is my plan for now. However, dumping
> the whole client cache is something I'd like to avoid, since the app I am
> working on will not work over a corporate intranet and thus the bandwidth
> for transferring the blobs is limited (and so can take up considerable
> time). Maybe I am overestimating the whole client cache problem though.
> Thanks again for your valuable advice,
> -Matthias
> _______________________________________________
> For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
> ZODB-Dev mailing list  -
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -

Reply via email to