Archives
|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Summary-Talk] Summary Speed
Would there be any way to add a fixed sub-report to Summary that shows the stats for ALL the log lines, instead of having to add one manually? I just removed our report that does this, and it seems to have speeded things up considerably, obviously since it matched EVERY log line, as well as individual reports matching them as well. If there was a way to just make this a built-in function, maybe it could keep speed the same while having the functionality to see the stats Summary-wide? - John >On 1/17/04 8:51 AM John May (jmaymailing@pointinspace.com) wrote: > >>Is the CLI version faster at processing stats as well? > >No, the Macintosh Carbon/GUI version and the CLI version are more or less >the same speed except for DNS lookups (which are *way* faster in the CLI >version). On x86 hardware, the Linux version is slightly faster than the >windows version on the same machine, particularly at DNS lookups, but >also slightly faster in general. > >>What are the main determining factors for the speed of stats >>processing? Number of sub-reports? Number of log files (obviously)? >>Number of sub-reports that each log entry matches (and how much does >>matching 2 vs. 1 increase time)? > >There are three issues that primarily determine speed. First is the total >size of your log files. It doesn't matter so much how many files, only >the total size really matters. Second is the number of sub-reports each >log entry appears in, on average. If you filter out most log entries, so >they don't appear in any sub-report, that will be much faster than ten >sub-reports that all include all log entries. Third is the complexity of >your configuration settings. Then more fields you have configured, and >the more entries in each field, the slower Summary is. So, for example, >if you have a list of 400 agents to filter Summary will be slower than if >that field is blank. > >Across platforms, the Linux version is the fastest and AMD processors are >faster than Intel processors (of similar rated speeds). The Macintosh >versions are faster per Mhz, but you can get x86 processors that have >enough extra Mhz to more than make up for that (at least right now). > >Jason > >----------------- >Jason@Summary.Net >----------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- John May : President <http://www.pointinspace.com> Point In Space Internet Solutions jmay@pointinspace.com LPA Corporate Partner / FSA Associate / ACN Member Professional Lasso / PHP / MySQL / FileMaker Pro Hosting ------------- Go to <http://summary.net/list.html> to update subscription info.
|