Re: IDS 7.30 on Linux Tuning Benchmark?

From: Tim Schaefer <tschaefe@mindspring.com> > >OK Clownster, > >I went from 2 and 1 to 98 and 1, did an onmode -c after each 10,000 rows. >Nothing else changed in the onconfig, my buffers stayed the same, at 25% >of Virtual Memory per the book. So... > >This gave me 2-second checkpoints, no FG's and all Chunk Writes:120135 >No LRU writes. Very nice loading. I reduced the loading from 7:51 to >6:44, >( min:sec ) to now give me 1666 records/sec. This was interrupted though >by the two-second checkpoints. > >I also tried taking out the onmode -c after each 10,000 row load, and >doubled >the buffers, but this caused long checkpoints averaging around 6 or 7 >seconds. >It did reduce the total load time further to 5:04. Very interesting, >because >the loads went like this: >:06 >:06 >:14 < ckpt >:06 >:06 >:05 >:14 < ckpt > >Interesting, even at that it was a faster load. I guess this is the way >to go for now. Yep, I wouldn't have gone for onmode -c's either. Furthermore, you might want to try LRU_MIN_DIRTY a bit higher (say 70) and LRU_MAX_DIRTY at around 80 or 85. >Hmmmmm... Linux ain't so bad I guess, but I really don't have a reference >point >other than XPS lately. Cherries and pumpkins... :-) >It would be better to get a high-performance loader ported, so we could >avoid the buffer problem altogether. This would eliminate having to chop >up >load files. Unless of course I'm missing something, I can't load large >loads >without incurring long transactions. Well, if you missed the transaction logging... :-) >BTW, Somebody implied lately that you went from vaudeville to the big top. >Any truth to that? 8-) Not in front of the chilredn, Tim... :-) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com