[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: (ITS#3851) Berkeley DB Scalability Patch
--On Sunday, August 28, 2005 1:30 AM -0400 Jong-Hyuk
<jongchoi@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> Quanah,
> Do you also have a result without "-q" option ?
Hi Jong,
I do not have a result without the -q option for this particular test.
However, like I've noted previously, I see the same results you do for your
patch whenever I keep the number of indices low, and that is with the -q
option. I can't see any reason why -q would affect BDB's internal memory
allocation, and since I'm only getting differences from your results by
increasing the indexing, I seriously doubt -q is affecting it. Given that
the usefulness of -q has been quite proven in a large number of
environments (10k dbs, 50 million entry dbs, all with varying numbers of
indices) I don't have much incentive to not use it, either.
If I can continue to have access to the borrowed linux box I'm using for
these tests, I may set up one without -q, although I really doubt the end
result will change, and it may take several weeks to finish each of them,
because I'll be losing the known performance boost -q offers.
BTW, current progress with your patch:
root:/tmp/ldif# time slapadd -q -l 2M-peons.ldif
[################################### ] ( 89%) 01w04d 1788432 obj
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Product Engineer
Symas Corporation
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP:
<http://www.symas.com>