Diogo Biazus wrote:
> Bill Moran wrote:
>
>> Diogo Biazus wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
<SNIP>
>>>
>>> Does anyone has an idea of a more cost eficient solution?
>>> How to get a better performance without having to invest some
>>> astronomicaly high amount of money?
>>
>> This isn't hardware related, but FreeBSD 5 is not a particularly
>> impressive
>> performer. Especially 5.0 ... 5.2.1 would be better, but if you're
>> shooting
>> for performance, 4.9 will probably outperform both of them at this
>> stage of
>> the game.
>>
>> Something to consider if the query tuning that others are helping with
>> doesn't
>> solve the problem. Follow through with that _first_ though.
>>
>> However, if you insist on running 5, make sure your kernel is compiled
>> without
>> WITNESS ... it speeds things up noticably.
>
> Thanks for the advice, I'll try recompiling the kernel. Does the freebsd
> version make a noticeable diference?
Absolutely ... FreeBSD 5.0 is awful slow. 5.1 is better, 5.2.1 is almost
as fast as 4.9.
If you're really concerned with speed, though, you need to stick with 4.9
for now. I'd stay focused on the db tuning as long as there look like
reasonable things to tune there, but FreeBSD 5.0 is NOT a good performer -
it's still too early in the development process. If you have a reason to
use 5, 5.2.1 is what you want, but if you want the best performer, use 4.9.
--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
