Server performance statistics

Anatoli · March 5, 2003

The Disk 0 is strange.

But the rest is possibly OK. Maybe there is not lot of traffic.

Anatoli · March 19, 2003

Slightly improved last numbers:

Disk: 9726 KB/sec

Network: 2823 KB/sec

Transactions: 6559

Arin · May 6, 2003

Here's info from our recently setup 200Mhz PII running RedHat Linux 7.3 / 96 Megs Ram / 1Gig IDE & 3 Gig SCSI - using server 5.5 with cache set at 8 Megs (all info is peak info)

______________________

Disk KB/sec - 4652

Files - 26

Users - 4

Network KB/Sec - 2640

Transactions - 5600

______________________

After using FM Server on Mac OS X (G3s & G4s) and OS 9 I'm happiest with the performance / stability / price that linux offers.

We may be upgrading to a 2Gig P4... if so I'll post those stats as well.

Anatoli · May 6, 2003

That is GREAT! I am glad, that FM server on Linux is soooo good. FM probably hired someone clever to do Linux version of FM server as they did with Windows server version.

Arin · May 9, 2003

Here's updated info after 4 days of uptime... still using the 200Mhz PII... still no crashes...

______________________

Disk KB/sec - 7384

Files - 26

Users - 4

Network KB/Sec - 2640

Transactions - 11160

______________________

(did I mention that with linux you can 'reload' the preferences (conf file) from the CLI WITHOUT having to restart FMS and kick everyone off!)

Anatoli · May 10, 2003

Excellent!

If FM did the statistics correctly, it is insanely great { Steve Jobs} result from PII.

It shows how bloated GUI systems sucks as servers, Mac or Windows!

Peter2543 · May 24, 2003

Is this simultaneous peak?

Anatoli · May 24, 2003

In what way? I guess transactions will have some demand on storage and on network. Without transactions there will not be high numbers in rest of categories.

AudioFreak · June 23, 2003

We recently purchased the New Millennium Filemaker server. Seems to be fine after 1 week. Here are the numbers. All numbers are peak.

Disk KB/sec 4512

Files 16

Guests 10

Network KB/sec 3096

Transactions 20740

Good or bad?

Michael

Anatoli · June 24, 2003

I think it is excellent result!

Although the Number of Transactions seems to me a bit of optimistic on Linux machines.

Is that Linux?

AudioFreak · June 24, 2003

Anatoli,

Yes it is running Linux v7.2. I agree with the transactions being a little off. Especially considering the average was around 600 if I remember correctly. Nice to know the numbers are pretty good.

Michael

Anatoli · June 24, 2003

Real test will be to have Windows and Linux servers next to each other for the same network testing.

But I am very impressed by Linux boxes. They are not something special in HW configuration. My server was build with single condition: fastest and most reliable. Money where no object.

AudioFreak · June 27, 2003

I would like to add a little more to this subject by request. The files that are being hosted by Fm Server perform much faster then when opened directly on client computer and being the only user. This is something that I was not expecting but am very happy to see. Not exactly sure why but I'm not going to complain. Calculations and finds perform much faster then normal. Normaly when performing a find which finds say 6000 records would basically fill the screen down slowly. With Fm server hosting the files, the found set displays instantly. A fair comparison would be DSL to dial up opening a web page with lots of graphics. Can anyone here explain why?

Michael

Anatoli · June 27, 2003

I was trying explain that to "bosses" here 2 years ago also, but they wouldn't buy my idea. They said it cannot be possible. Local access is local access.

Now it is independently confirmed

On good operating system software, like Linux or Windows the speed difference is very visible. TCP/IP network is 2-3 times faster, then Mac TCP.

The FM server is also faster and it is pushing data at greater rate, than local access to drive. Also FM client and CPU is only getting and displaying the data and copying data to local Temp file, without any other work. That is fast.

Local FM access must send the request to OS, OS must ask disk to find the data, data are transferred to memory, stored in Temp file, calculated and displayed and everything is handled by single CPU.

AudioFreak · July 23, 2003

Here are the latest numbers from our Linux box. All are peak.

Disk KB/sec 10920

Files 16

Guests 9

Network KB/sec 4208

Transactions 32767

I have noticed through this thread that there are other servers with the exact same number of transactions. any one have any idea why?

Michael

Anatoli · July 24, 2003

That looks suspicious, doesn't it?

If it is enough fast for users, then all is OK

C Higham · July 28, 2003

Right, running a Dual Xeon 1.8 processors on Debian with a 2.4.20 kernel (none of this out of date redhat rubbish for me!)

Peak Values:

Disk: 32767 (that same figure again...)

Files: 117

Network: 20252

Transactions: 32767 (again!)

Chris.

Anatoli · July 28, 2003

IMHO -- FMS doesn't work on 2 processors. Maybe v. 7?

C Higham · July 29, 2003

Indeed, if you look at the server stats:

Linux 2.4.20 (database) 07/29/03

08:17:30 CPU %user %nice %system %idle intr/s

08:17:30 all 0.24 0.00 0.40 99.36 334.10

08:17:30 0 0.28 0.00 0.66 99.05 334.10

08:17:30 1 0.20 0.00 0.31 99.50 334.10

08:17:30 2 0.28 0.00 0.37 99.35 334.10

08:17:30 3 0.20 0.00 0.27 99.53 334.10

CPU 0 seems to be doing most of the work, if you'd call it that I suspect it still benefits from a multiprocessor system since the other processors will deal with other system tasks, given the CPU useage though I think it might be overkill for the current use it gets (although no-one has really logged on yet).

Anatoli · July 29, 2003

I have feeling, that 2-nd processor will be used up to 5-10% only.

But you can probably run something in parallel with FM

AudioFreak · August 4, 2003

Well our server went down and we had to move the files to a mac laptop., Here are the numbers.

Disk KB/sec 636

Files 16

Guests 5

Network KB/sec 99

Transactions 550

Big difference compared to the Linux server. But will have to do for now.

Anatoli · August 4, 2003

Do I recall from other thread something to do with disk(s)?

AudioFreak · August 4, 2003

Anatoli,

Actually our server was hacked and being used to ping other IP"s. But at least we managed to pull our files before any real damage was done.

Michael

Anatoli · August 5, 2003

I am sorry to hear that. It looks like Linux or Windows are easily hackable

We have all FM Windows servers behind firewalls.

Is there known Mac OS or OS X case of successful attack?

BobWeaver · August 8, 2003

Anatoli, what do you mean by a successful attack on Mac OS servers? If they are not behind a firewall (or even behind a filewall with port 5003 open), then all of the Filemaker databases are completely vulnerable. If you were to give me the IP address of a server I could wipe out all the files on it in seconds whether it is Mac, Linux or Windows.

1. Run my FMScanner application which reads the names of all the files on the server at the selected IP address.

2. Select one of the files, and all of its passwords are displayed. (See the attached screen shot.)

3. Run FileMaker Pro and log in to the file using the full access password obtained in step 2.

4. Delete all records.

5. Repeat the above steps for all files on the server.

This is why FM server should only be accessible through VPN or some other secure socket type thing.

Anatoli · August 8, 2003

I do agree! !!! !! !!! !!!

That my question was quite of topic, sorry.

Nothing to do with FM or FMS.

I was just curious about platform security, that's all.

We do use the VPN only!

ernst · August 9, 2003

Hey Bob,

I hope your 'FMScanner' application is NOT available for other people then yourself?

Ernst.

BobWeaver · August 10, 2003

Don't worry, I just created FMScanner to demonstrate the insecurity of running FM Server on a publicly accessible network (and ...umm... to impress the girls). There is only one copy and it's not going anywhere.

But, it is only slightly less convenient to do the same thing with readily available network traffic analysis software. So, just because my program isn't available, FM Server is still very vulnerable to attack.

Anatoli · August 10, 2003

RE: FM Server is still very vulnerable to attack.

I'll say everything from FMI is very vulnerable to attack.

IMHO -- FMI has last chance with new version, let's hope it will be 7 and it will be soon.

RE: to impress the girls

I see, that is strong motivation Because of that I use to be a Rock Star and producer...

How easy is that these days for computer geeks

ernst · August 10, 2003

Hey Bob,

Well , I'm certainly impressed, but not a girl. Sorry

regards,

Ernst.

Sign In

Server performance statistics

Recommended Posts

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information