Typically Pervasive is not CPU bound so whichever processor will
likely make little difference in performance.
It is however usually IO bound so the faster the IO hardware (both
disk and network) the better.

Nothing jumps out at me as "wrong" in the config file.

There is one other item to think of in behavior between file system
performance and database performance, file system information is
streamed. Specifically read-ahead caching helps and network transfers
allow multiple packets to be in transit before an ack response.
Database requests are typically random on the disk (RAID is
specifically mentioned, is it set to do a lot of read-ahead, if so
that can hurt the random database access requests) and the network
transfers are synchronous. Specifically for the transactional api,
the application makes a database request and waits for the single
answer processes the data then makes the next request. This is very
apparent if you are running a single client to the database engine.
Instead of checking the throughput by the amount of data try checking
the throughput on the number of requests serviced. The Pervasive
Monitor utility is a good place to do this. For a single client
across a fast network expect 1000+ round trip requests per second to
be processed (providing the application does not do a lot of work with
the data it gets back). Keep in mind "ping" takes about 1 ms on most
networks and does not have to do any work at the server. If you
network latency is higher expect lower numbers (for a single client).

Leonard

On 21 Aug 2003 10:43:29 -0700, garrettj (AT) annalee (DOT) com (Garrett) wrote: