Re: 2.1 & 2.2 statistics, and some odd behavior that needs to be examined.

["Jong" <jongchoi@OpenLDAP.org>]

Quanah,
It will help to locate the probelm if you can further obtain a vmstat trace
for the first four rows of the last table of the performance result page,
http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/directories/statistics/solaris/replica/performance.html .

BTW, when it comes to the search performance, the hashing DB performs
better than the btree by more than 10% when shared memory is not used,
and this conforms to what I observed in one of my experiments.
With the share memory, however, they appear almost on par...

> Jong,
> 
> This explanation really does not explain what I'm seeing.  By what you say 
> above, simple binds & SASL binds should see the same performance issues, 
> because the memory pool will be getting dirty either way.  That is *not* 
> what is happening, if you read through my post on this:
> 
> SASL-based queries: 28 ans/sec average
> anonymous queries: 222 ans/sec average
> 
> If what you are saying were true, I should have even *worse* performance 
> with the anonymous queries, because they would be dirtying the memory pool 
> faster.
> 
> --Quanah
> 
> --
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Principal Software Developer
> ITSS/TSS/Computing Systems
> ITSS/TSS/Infrastructure Operations
> Stanford University
> GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html
> 
>