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

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>]

--On Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:37 PM -0500 Jong 
<jongchoi@OpenLDAP.org> wrote:

> Oh... I was referring to the difference in the slapadding performance -
> 7~8 hours vs. 2 hours
> in your old mail. But the same assesment can be applied to the read
> application as well, because BDB needs to write to the memory pool even
> when read is performed -> the entries read from disk drive need to be
> written to the BDB memory pool, and from the viewpoint of the BDB memory
> pool, it is that continuous writes are taking place when entries are
> brought from the database file.

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