Login ProductsSalesSupportDownloadsAbout |
Home » Technical Support » ElevateDB Technical Support » Support Forums » ElevateDB General » View Thread |
Messages 1 to 10 of 19 total |
C/S performance |
Thu, Oct 3 2013 10:13 PM | Permanent Link |
Arthur Williams Zarksoft | Just running some small benchmarks between EDB, DBISAM and Interbase. EDB performs about as fast as Interbase, but it uses five times the network bandwidth. IB runs around 1 Mbps and EDB runs at 5 Mbps, with wall times of 52 and 54 seconds respectively for inserting 100K records. Interesting.
|
Fri, Oct 4 2013 4:31 AM | Permanent Link |
Roy Lambert NLH Associates Team Elevate | Arthur
>Just running some small benchmarks between EDB, DBISAM and Interbase. EDB performs about as fast as Interbase, but it uses five times the network bandwidth. IB runs around 1 Mbps and EDB runs at 5 Mbps, with wall times of 52 and 54 seconds respectively for inserting 100K records. Interesting. > Not being a C/S user, and assuming you're inserting the same data, I wonder about compression. Have you used a packet sniffer to see what's actually being transfered? Two questions: 1. What about DBISAM? 2. What is a wall time? Roy |
Fri, Oct 4 2013 8:39 AM | Permanent Link |
Arthur Williams Zarksoft | Wall time is the elapsed time based on the clock on the wall.
DBISAM performs rather poorly. It runs about 4 Mbps but the elapsed time is just over 4 minutes. Not even remotely close to the other two. No, I didn't run a packet sniffer. I don't care what's going on, it was just a simple test to see how EDB compared against something that costs almost ten times as much. I was pleasantly surprised at how well it did. ---------------------------------------------- Roy Lambert wrote: Not being a C/S user, and assuming you're inserting the same data, I wonder about compression. Have you used a packet sniffer to see what's actually being transfered? Two questions: 1. What about DBISAM? 2. What is a wall time? Roy |
Fri, Oct 4 2013 8:57 AM | Permanent Link |
Raul Team Elevate | On 10/3/2013 10:13 PM, Arthur Williams wrote:
> Just running some small benchmarks between EDB, DBISAM and Interbase. EDB performs about as fast as Interbase, but it uses five times the network bandwidth. IB runs around 1 Mbps and EDB runs at 5 Mbps, with wall times of 52 and 54 seconds respectively for inserting 100K records. Interesting. I'd definitely suggest you try this with EDB Session compression setting enabled ( default is 0 which is none). Setting is called RemoteCompression and value runs from 0..9. Manual recommends 6 for good speed/size compromise. Raul |
Fri, Oct 4 2013 10:30 AM | Permanent Link |
Roy Lambert NLH Associates Team Elevate | Arthur
>Wall time is the elapsed time based on the clock on the wall. Oh. |
Fri, Oct 4 2013 10:43 AM | Permanent Link |
Arthur Williams Zarksoft | On a faster machine EDB turns in a markedly better performance. Running the same code, bandwidth usage jumps to 21 Mbps and cpu usage averages 30% yielding an elapsed time of 16 seconds. IB jumps up to 9 Mbps and has an elapsed time of 18 seconds, with a comparable 30% use of the cpu. So both systems increased their speed by a factor of 4 but IB needed 8 times the bandwidth to do so, whereas EDB only doubled its bandwidth usage.
I tried the compression setting, but found it to make zero difference beyond a mild (2-3%) increase in CPU usage. I suspect the record (3 ints) is simply too short for compression to have any effect. >> Raul wrote: On 10/3/2013 10:13 PM, Arthur Williams wrote: I'd definitely suggest you try this with EDB Session compression setting enabled ( default is 0 which is none). Setting is called RemoteCompression and value runs from 0..9. Manual recommends 6 for good speed/size compromise. Raul |
Fri, Oct 4 2013 10:45 AM | Permanent Link |
Arthur Williams Zarksoft | My mistake, EDB used 4 times its original bandwidth. For some reason I was thinking it used 10 Mbps in those trials.
>> Arthur Williams wrote: On a faster machine EDB turns in a markedly better performance. Running the same code, bandwidth usage jumps to 21 Mbps and cpu usage averages 30% yielding an elapsed time of 16 seconds. IB jumps up to 9 Mbps and has an elapsed time of 18 seconds, with a comparable 30% use of the cpu. So both systems increased their speed by a factor of 4 but IB needed 8 times the bandwidth to do so, whereas EDB only doubled its bandwidth usage. |
Fri, Oct 4 2013 10:52 AM | Permanent Link |
Arthur Williams Zarksoft | DBISAM shows the same 4x improvement in speed although its bandwidth usage jumps to 40 Mbps.
>> Arthur Williams wrote: On a faster machine EDB turns in a markedly better performance. Running the same code, bandwidth usage jumps to 21 Mbps and cpu usage averages 30% yielding an elapsed time of 16 seconds. IB jumps up to 9 Mbps and has an elapsed time of 18 seconds, with a comparable 30% use of the cpu. So both systems increased their speed by a factor of 4 but IB needed 8 times the bandwidth to do so, whereas EDB only doubled its bandwidth usage. |
Tue, Oct 8 2013 4:52 PM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. timyoung@elevatesoft.com | Arthur,
<< Just running some small benchmarks between EDB, DBISAM and Interbase. EDB performs about as fast as Interbase, but it uses five times the network bandwidth. IB runs around 1 Mbps and EDB runs at 5 Mbps, with wall times of 52 and 54 seconds respectively for inserting 100K records. Interesting. >> When you say "bandwidth", do you mean just the raw amount of data sent/received ? Can you send me the EDB benchmark code ? I'm curious as to what the actual operations are (SQL, navigational, etc.), and I might be able to shed some light on the bandwidth usage. It may be due to some memory alignment going on with respect to encryption of requests/responses. Thanks, Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Thu, Oct 10 2013 10:49 AM | Permanent Link |
Arthur Williams Zarksoft | I'm referring to the total network traffic going out over the nic. I don't care what's going on, I was just doing some small testing of some of the db software I have. I bought something like six db systems last year and now I'm sorting through them to see which support subscriptions I plan to renew and which ones I'm dropping, that's all.
I did already renew DBISAM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Tim Young [Elevate Software]" wrote: Arthur, << Just running some small benchmarks between EDB, DBISAM and Interbase. EDB performs about as fast as Interbase, but it uses five times the network bandwidth. IB runs around 1 Mbps and EDB runs at 5 Mbps, with wall times of 52 and 54 seconds respectively for inserting 100K records. Interesting. >> When you say "bandwidth", do you mean just the raw amount of data sent/received ? Can you send me the EDB benchmark code ? I'm curious as to what the actual operations are (SQL, navigational, etc.), and I might be able to shed some light on the bandwidth usage. It may be due to some memory alignment going on with respect to encryption of requests/responses. Thanks, Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Page 1 of 2 | Next Page » | |
Jump to Page: 1 2 |
This web page was last updated on Friday, September 20, 2024 at 05:39 PM | Privacy PolicySite Map © 2024 Elevate Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved Questions or comments ? E-mail us at info@elevatesoft.com |