On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 10:13:15AM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
It sounds like you've done more comprehensive speed testing than we have. Can you share some numbers?
Unfortunately no, I can't. We made measurements during a consulting job I did for another company, and it was made by them, not me, *plus* I wasn't smart enough to save a copy of the numbers :-/ Anyway, the biggest problem they had was stability, their ZODB grows and shrinks insickening speeds, and Data.fs would break for some reasons I don't remember anymore, and OracleFS solved that. I'll try to convince them to write a report to the list.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lalo Martins" <lalo@hackandroll.org> To: <zope-dev@zope.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:42 AM Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] OracleStorage, and possibly others
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:02:50AM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
Of course it would, for the same reasons as OracleStorage (eg FileStorage/Data.fs is inefficient)
Actually, it's the other way around. OracleStorage is 30-to-50 times slower than FileStorage on writes. Reads are slow too but the slowness is somewhat negated by caching.
Chris, that's only true for small databases. At about 100M of Data.fs, OracleStorage starts being faster. It depends on hardware too. We made some benchmarks on a major Brazilian portal, and well, it's currently running OracleStorage.
Anyway, I said "inefficient", not "slow".
[]s, |alo +---- -- Hack and Roll ( http://www.hackandroll.org ) The biggest site for whatever-it-is-that-we-are. http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo mailto:lalo@hackandroll.org pgp key: http://zope.gf.com.br/lalo/pessoal/pgp Brazil of Darkness (RPG) --- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar