<div>No - I actually didn't omit the OS -- it's right above where you posted that I hadn't </div>
<div>It's SCO OpenServer 5.0.5</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This Dell uses a Perc RAID controller and has 512MB L cache when it boots -- </div>
<div>Are you saying if this was put in a system that had a faster bus and faster RAID throughput that the results would be faster?? Just wanting to clarify what you're saying</div>
<div><br>Scott</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/11/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Fairlight</b> <<a href="mailto:fairlite@fairlite.com">fairlite@fairlite.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 09:28:11AM -0400, scooter6, the prominent pundit,<br>witicized:<br>> I have a customer who is running filepro
5.0.09R4 on a SCO OpenServer<br>> 5.0.5platform --<br>><br>> Hardware is a Dell Poweredge Server - 2.4GHz processor<br><br>I note you omit the OS...which would be relevant to this discussion in some<br>circumstances.
<br><br>> Everything has been working great for about 3 yrs now -- I decided to<br>> upgrade their RAM -- they only had 512MB -- so, I'm at client's site --<br>> ordered 2GB from Dell and installed it last night -- everything booted fine
<br>> and ran a couple of processes last night - including some indexes - and it<br>> seemed a bit faster - just not REALLY faster like I would have thought --<br>><br>> During their series of night time processes that runs nightly, it wasn't any
<br>> faster at all to complete -- still takes about an hour and a half ???<br>><br>> Anyone have any suggestions on why the filepro processes wouldn't be<br>> noticably quicker to run ???<br>> Thanks<br>
<br>Well, if your benchmark is rebuilding indexes and doing reports, you've<br>upgraded the wrong components. Those tasks use very little memory by<br>comparison, and your main bottleneck is disk I/O speed--especially on an
<br>index rebuild, since that's almost all disk I/O. Faster drives and bus<br>speeds would help.<br><br>The key is whether or not you were maxing memory usage to begin with. If<br>you weren't, then upgrading the amount of RAM is meaningless for this
<br>use--a waste of money. The only way more RAM will increase speed is if<br>you're going into swap before an upgrade and not needing swap after it.<br>fP is a low-memory-consumption application, mostly affected by how many
<br>instances of its programs are running concurrently. First place to look is<br>not RAM, it's hard drive throughput and performance.<br><br>mark-><br>--<br>No matter what your problems, modern medicine can help!
<br><a href="http://members.iglou.com/fairlite/fixital/">http://members.iglou.com/fairlite/fixital/</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Filepro-list mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Filepro-list@lists.celestial.com">
Filepro-list@lists.celestial.com</a><br><a href="http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list">http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list</a><br></blockquote></div><br>