From: Marcin S. <ma...@se...> - 2011-01-28 07:38:44
|
Is there any reasonable explanation why FB 2.5 superclassic server consumes about 2 times more RAM than FB 2.1 classic server? I made tests on the same machines th same version of debian with default firebird.conf with the database created from the same script and the same settings (16KB page, 512 page buffers). Tests were made with the same application, the same number of connections and the same operations were preformed. If someone needs I can provide further details about environement. Marcin |
From: Dmitry Y. <fir...@ya...> - 2011-01-28 08:37:14
|
28.01.2011 10:38, Marcin Smereka wrote: > Is there any reasonable explanation why FB 2.5 superclassic server > consumes about 2 times more RAM than FB 2.1 classic server? What are the numbers? Both for physical and virtual memory. > I made tests on the same machines th same version of debian with default > firebird.conf with the database created from the same script and the > same settings (16KB page, 512 page buffers). > Tests were made with the same application, the same number of > connections and the same operations were preformed. You have compared the sum per all processes in 2.1 vs single process in v2.5, haven't you? Or have you compared the overall (system-wide) memory usage? > If someone needs I can provide further details about environment. Please do. Dmitry |
From: Marcin S. <ma...@se...> - 2011-01-28 22:52:15
|
I'm sorry, but I misguided you in my previous post. I checked my configuration again and realized that I compare 2.1 classic vs 2.5 classic (not superclassic). But it is still true, that 2.5 consumes much more RAM than 2.1. That's my test environement: One physical machine with 1 CPU with Proxomox VE (Open VZ) container that contains 4 virtual machines. Only one VM where used at the same time. All VMs have debian 5.0.2 with default settings and 1GB RAM. All VMs have FB classic with default firebird.conf. The only difference is FB version (2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.5.0, 2.5.1). Each server has its own database, created by this server from the same script. Each database has 16KB page size and 512 page buffers. Here are my tested values: FB 2.1.3 First client connection (fb_inet_server) takes: VIRT=95MB, RES=73MB, DATA=85MB, SHR=4MB Each next connection launches another fb_inet_server with the same values, so the memory usage is linear. FB 2.1.4 First client connection (fb_inet_server) takes: VIRT=92MB, RES=68MB, DATA=81MB, SHR=4MB Each next connection launches another fb_inet_server with the same values, so the memory usage is linear. FB 2.5.0 First client connection (fb_inet_server) takes: VIRT=174MB, RES=116MB, DATA=159MB, SHR=5MB Each next connection launches another fb_inet_server with the same values, so the memory usage is linear. FB 2.5.1 First client connection (fb_inet_server) takes: VIRT=182MB, RES=116MB, DATA=167MB, SHR=5MB Each next connection (fb_inet_server) takes: VIRT=174MB, RES=116MB, DATA=159MB, SHR=5MB As you can see under 2.5.0/1 each server process consumes about 2 times more RAM than under 2.1.3/4. Marcin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dmitry Yemanov" <fir...@ya...> To: "For discussion among Firebird Developers" <fir...@li...> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [Firebird-devel] Memory consumption - FB 2.1.3 vs FB 2.5.0 > What are the numbers? Both for physical and virtual memory. > > You have compared the sum per all processes in 2.1 vs single process in > v2.5, haven't you? Or have you compared the overall (system-wide) memory > usage? > |