Public 1C server for testing. Standard load test. Operating system ms server and ms sql database
Accounting and management accounting products from 1C are the most common in the Russian Federation. Thousands of companies conduct their business based on standard and specialized 1C configurations. With such massive use, a number of questions regularly arise regarding optimizing the software budget and wise use of resources. There are ongoing disputes around the server parts of this complex, in particular - on which operating system to base the 1C server and which DBMS to entrust the processing of 1C databases to. During our tests we will try to answer these questions.
Test participants
MS Server operating system and MS SQL DBMS
- The 1C company openly positions this combination as the main working model; accordingly, 1C products are created primarily for it
- Availability of a protocol for direct high-speed information exchange SharedMemory
- There is official technical support and service contracts
- There is a knowledge base and tons of information on installation and fine-tuning of 1C+MS SQL
Unix operating system and PostgreSQL DBMS
- The system is completely free (except for the license for the 1C:Enterprise server)
- It is possible to flexibly configure many parameters that improve the performance of the DBMS
- 1C products announced support for PostgreSQL DBMS
- There is a possibility of database replication
Of course, the cost of the project, fault tolerance and technical support are important criteria when choosing an information system for 1C. However, there is a factor that in most cases radically influences decision making - speed.
Since there is simply a great amount of technical literature on these two systems on the Internet, one could argue for a long time about long comparative tables that, depending on the goals, highlight the benefits of a particular product. You can debate about this or that parameter among hundreds of others of the same kind - how unique it is in its kind and how it affects the achievement of the result. But theory without practice is dead - in this article we propose to omit the theory and go directly to the facts in order to test in practice the performance of both information systems with a certain level of recommended settings and in various server architecture options (see Table 2).
Test methods
In our tests, we will rely on two methods of synthetic load generation and simulating user work in 1C. This is the Gilev test (TPC-1C) and a special 1C test “Test Center” from the 1C: KIP tools with special user scenarios.
Gilev test (TPC-1C)
Gilev test belongs to the section of universal cross-platform load tests. It can be used for both file and client-server architectures of 1C:Enterprise. The test measures the amount of work per unit of time in one thread and is suitable for assessing the speed of single-threaded workloads, including the speed of interface drawing, the impact of resource costs, re-posting documents, month-end closing procedures, payroll calculations, etc. Versatility allows you to make a summary performance assessment without being tied to one platform configuration. The test result is a total assessment of the measured 1C system, expressed in conventional units.
Specialized test from the Test Center 1C tools: Instrumentation
Test center– a tool for conducting multi-user load tests of systems based on 1C:Enterprise 8 (see Figure 1). With its help, you can simulate the work of a company without the participation of real users, which allows you to evaluate the applicability, performance and scalability of an information system in real conditions. The system is a configuration that provides a mechanism for controlling the testing process. To test the information base, it is necessary to integrate the Test Center configuration into the configuration of the database being tested by comparing and combining configurations. As a result of the merger, objects and common modules necessary for the operation of the Test Center will be added to the metadata of the tested database.
Figure 1 - Scheme of work of “Test Center” 1C: Instrumentation
Thus, using the 1C: KIP tools, based on the available data in real 1C production bases, the programmer creates a full-fledged automatic testing scenario based on the list of documents and reference books that are key for this type of configuration (application for spending funds, ordering to a supplier, selling goods and services, etc.). When you run the script, Test Center will automatically play the multi-user activity described in the script. To do this, the Test Center will create the required number of virtual users (in accordance with the list of roles) and start performing actions.
Test parameters
When setting up testing scenarios to reliably simulate the simultaneous work of a large number of users, certain testing parameters are set for each type of document (see Table 1):
- Document – indicates a specific document in the working database on the basis of which load testing will be carried out
- Launch priority – determines the order in which tests are launched for each type of document
- Number of documents – determines the volume of generated test documents
- Pause, seconds – delay when starting a series of tests within one type of document
- The number of lines in the document is an information pointer indicating the “massiveness” of the test document, which affects processing time and resource load
Tests are performed in 3 iterations, the results are recorded in a table. Thus, the obtained test results, measured in seconds, most realistically and objectively reflect the level of performance of 1C databases in conditions that are as close as possible to real ones (see tables 3.1 and 3.2).
Table 1. Test scenario parameters
| Document | Launch priority | Number of documents | Pause, seconds | Number of lines in document | |
| Role 1 | Buyer's invoice | 1 | 25 | 51 | 62 |
| Receipt of goods | 2 | 25 | 80 | ||
| Sales of goods | 3 | 25 | 103 | ||
| Money orders | 4 | 25 | 1 | ||
| Buyer Returns | 5 | 25 | 82 | ||
| Role 2 | Buyer's invoice5 | 10 | 65 | 79 | |
| Receipt of goods | 1 | 22 | 80 | ||
| Sales of goods | 2 | 25 | 103 | ||
| Money orders | 3 | 25 | 1 | ||
| Buyer Returns | 4 | 25 | 75 | ||
| Role 3 | Buyer's invoice | 4 | 15 | 45 | 76 |
| Receipt of goods | 5 | 26 | 80 | ||
| Sales of goods | 1 | 52 | 103 | ||
| Money orders | 2 | 26 | 1 | ||
| Buyer Returns | 3 | 32 | 90 | ||
| Role 4 | Buyer's invoice | 3 | 45 | 38 | 70 |
| Receipt of goods | 4 | 30 | 80 | ||
| Sales of goods | 5 | 30 | 103 | ||
| Money orders | 1 | 20 | 1 | ||
| Buyer Returns | 2 | 20 | 86 | ||
| Role 5 | Buyer's invoice | 2 | 30 | 73 | 76 |
| Receipt of goods | 3 | 30 | 80 | ||
| Sales of goods | 4 | 30 | 103 | ||
| Money orders | 5 | 18 | 1 | ||
| Buyer Returns | 1 | 18 | 91 | ||
| Role 6 | Buyer's invoice | 1 | 40 | 35 | 86 |
| Receipt of goods | 2 | 40 | 80 | ||
| Sales of goods | 3 | 40 | 103 | ||
| Money orders | 4 | 40 | 1 | ||
| Buyer Returns | 5 | 40 | 88 | ||
| Role 7 | Buyer's invoice | 5 | 25 | 68 | 80 |
| Receipt of goods | 1 | 25 | 80 | ||
| Sales of goods | 2 | 25 | 103 | ||
| Money orders | 3 | 25 | 1 | ||
| Buyer Returns | 4 | 25 | 90 | ||
| Role 8 | Buyer's invoice | 3 | 25 | 62 | 87 |
| Receipt of goods | 4 | 25 | 80 | ||
| Sales of goods | 5 | 25 | 103 | ||
| Money orders | 1 | 25 | 1 | ||
| Buyer Returns | 2 | 25 | 92 | ||
| Role 9 | Buyer's invoice | 2 | 20 | 82 | 82 |
| Receipt of goods | 4 | 20 | 80 | ||
| Sales of goods | 5 | 20 | 103 | ||
| Money orders | 1 | 20 | 1 | ||
| Buyer Returns | 3 | 20 | 98 | ||
| Role 10 | Buyer's invoice | 4 | 50 | 2 | 92 |
| Receipt of goods | 1 | 50 | 80 | ||
| Sales of goods | 2 | 50 | 103 | ||
| Money orders | 5 | 50 | 1 | ||
| Buyer Returns | 3 | 50 | 98 |
Table 2. Technical characteristics of the test bench
| No. | Role of the system | CPU\vCPU | RAM, GB | Disk I/O system |
| 1 | Terminal Server– virtual machine for test management | 4 cores 2.9 GHz |
16 GB | Intel Sata SSD Raid1 |
| 2 | Scenario 1. Server 1C + DBMS hardware | Intel Xeon E5-2690 16 cores |
96 GB | Intel Sata SSD Raid1 |
| 3 | Scenario 2. Server 1C + virtual DBMS | 16 cores 2.9 GHz |
64 GB | Intel Sata SSD Raid1 |
| 4 | Scenario 3. Server 1C virtual | 16 cores 2.9 GHz |
32 GB | Intel Sata SSD Raid1 |
| 5 | Scenario 4. Virtual DBMS server | 16 cores 2.9 GHz |
32 GB | Intel Sata SSD Raid1 |
| 6 | Software |
|
||
| 7 | 1C configurations |
|
||
Table 3.1 Test results using the Gilev test (TPC-1C). The highest value is considered optimal
Table 3.2 Test results using a special 1C:KIP test. The smallest value is considered optimal
| Microsoft Server Operating System | Unix-class operating system | |||||
| List of tests (average value based on a series of 3 tests) | Hardware server 1C+DBMS, SharedMemory protocol | Virtual server 1C+DBMS, SharedMemory protocol | Hardware server 1C and hardware DBMS server, TCP-IP protocol | Virtual server 1C and virtual DBMS server, TCP-IP protocol | ||
| Conducting 1C:KIP tests on an existing database, Enterprise Accounting configuration | ||||||
| Turnover balance sheet | 1.741 sec | 2.473 sec | 2.873 sec | 2.522 sec | 13.866 sec | 9.751 sec |
| Carrying out the return of goods from customers | 0.695 sec | 0.775 sec | 0.756 sec | 0.781 sec | 0.499 sec | 0.719 sec |
| Carrying out payment orders | 0.048 sec | 0.058 sec | 0.063 sec | 0.064 sec | 0.037 sec | 0.065 sec |
| Conducting technical training | 0.454 sec | 0.548 sec | 0.535 sec | 0.556 sec | 0.362 sec | 0.568 sec |
| Sales of goods and services | 0.667 sec | 0.759 sec | 0.747 sec | 0.879 sec | 0.544 sec | 0.802 sec |
| Posting an invoice for payment | 0.028 sec | 0.037 sec | 0.037 sec | 0.038 sec | 0.026 sec | 0.038 sec |
| Calculation of cost estimates | 3.071 sec | 3.657 sec | 4.094 sec | 3.768 sec | 15.175 sec | 10.68 sec |
| Conducting 1C:KIP tests on an existing database, Trade Management configuration | ||||||
| Carrying out and returning from the client | 2.192 sec | 2.113 sec | 2.070 sec | 2.418 sec | 1.417 sec | 1.494 sec |
| Carrying out and returning goods to the supplier | 1.446 sec | 1.410 sec | 1.359 sec | 1.467 sec | 0.790 sec | 0.849 sec |
| Posting a customer order | 0.355 sec | 0.344 sec | 0.335 sec | 0.361 sec | 0.297 sec | 0.299 sec |
| Conducting a recount of goods | 0.140 sec | 0.134 sec | 0.131 sec | 0.144 sec | 0.100 sec | 0.097 sec |
| Conducting admission to technical specifications | 1.499 sec | 1.438 sec | 1.412 sec | 1.524 sec | 1.097 sec | 1.189 sec |
| Implementation of specifications | 1,390 sec | 1.355 sec | 1.308 sec | 1.426 sec | 1.093 sec | 1.114 sec |
| Carrying out RKO | 0.759 sec | 0.729 sec | 0.713 sec | 0.759 sec | 0.748 sec | 0.735 sec |
- In a special 1C test, “data reading and complex calculations” operations, such as “Turnover balance sheet” and “Calculation of cost estimates” are performed several times faster on the MS SQL DBMS from Microsoft.
- For the operations of “recording data and posting documents,” in most tests the best result is shown by the PostgreSQL DBMS, optimized for 1C.
- Gilev's synthetic test also shows the advantage of PostgreSQL. This fact is due to the fact that the synthetic test is based on measuring the speed of creating and posting certain types of documents, which is also considered the operations of “recording data and posting documents.”
Let's finish with the cross-platform comparison, let's move on to comparisons within each system:
- As expected, 1C tests on a hardware platform show better results than on a virtual one. The difference in the results of the special 1C test in both cases is small, which indicates gradual optimization by virtual hypervisor manufacturers.
- It is also expected that the use of shared memory technology (SharedMemory) speeds up the process of data exchange between the 1C server and the DBMS. Accordingly, the test results are slightly better than the scheme with network interaction of these two services via the TCP-IP protocol.
We can conclude that with the correct configuration of 1C and the DBMS, you can achieve significant results even with free software. Therefore, when designing a new IT structure for 1C, it is necessary to take into account the level of load on the system, the type of prevailing operations in the database, the available budget, the presence of a specialist in non-standard DBMS, the need for integration with external services, etc. Based on this data, it is already possible to select the required solution.
Read the continuation of testing.
Each support specialist has experience in receiving abstract complaints from users. Everyone is familiar with the formulations: “she thinks for a very long time,” “I have a red window,” “the system is working somehow wrong,” and also “this hasn’t happened for a long time, and here it is again.”
In such a situation, it is very difficult to immediately figure out where the error lies and what to do first. In this article we will look at what 1C performance depends on, i.e. highly loaded systems created on the basis of 1C:Enterprise, in situations where the symptoms are not fully understood and a specific diagnosis cannot be made.
The main reasons affecting 1C performance
In more than 60% of cases, the reasons for low productivity are:
- Suboptimal queries and configuration code (26% of cases);
- Suboptimal indexing of object tables (19% of cases);
- Non-optimal load on the disk subsystem (16% of cases).
Leading Microsoft developers agree with this.
Thus, to obtain a significant improvement in the performance of a database application, it is possible to optimize the scope of data access, including the logical and physical design of databases (as far as possible in 1C), as well as by creating the right queries and using optimal indexing. Some database performance problems can be solved by increasing hardware capacity, but not always: incorrect design of the application solution cannot be compensated for by a more powerful server. It is not uncommon that, without understanding the causes of a performance problem, user companies incur significant costs by purchasing new equipment, but the problem remains unresolved.
High-quality diagnostics of 1C performance using the entire range of existing tools is the key to successful problem solving and cost optimization
The first step to identifying and resolving low-performance issues is to develop a comprehensive list of the key problematic activities, including their current speed and expected future speed.
Example:
Incorrect: The program freezes when generating a report. I want it to form faster.
Correct: The “Debt Statement” report is generated in 5 minutes 10 seconds. The expected speed of generating this report is no more than 20 seconds.
After the list of problems has been compiled and digitized, it is necessary to analyze the causes, starting with a search for problematic code, if any (for example, “heavy” requests, long waits on locks, deadlocks, etc.).
Tools for identifying problematic code
- “1C: Performance Management Center” (a module included in the “1C: Corporate” tool package, produced by 1C);
- Gilev cloud services;
- Standard tools built into DBMS from leading vendors.
The effectiveness of using these tools is guaranteed by the qualification of the developer “1C: Technological Expert”, which implies his participation in large-scale implementations of 1C. At the same time, different experts, based on their individual experience, may give preference to one or another tool/method.
In parallel with the use of one of the presented tools, standard equipment load monitoring tools (Performance monitors counters) are also used.
Based on the measurements obtained, the class of cause is identified:
- The problem is in the code;
- And/or the problem is in the hardware;
- The problem is with other resource-intensive programs used on production servers.
Load testing 1C - a method for assessing server equipment
As already mentioned, among the factors that can affect the performance of 1C, both positively and negatively, server hardware and its configuration occupy an important place. Let's consider options for measurements, load assessment and testing of system performance under the following conditions:
- Server 1C is available and is located:
- Together with the DBMS;
- On a separate server.
To assess the compliance of the parameters of the existing server equipment with the requirements of the system, it is necessary to collect data on the load on the hardware, including the processor, i.e. 1C load testing. For this purpose, “Performance Monitor” is used - a tool that allows you to measure equipment on the operating circuit and read performance counters.
Below is a basic set of counters that need to be configured to monitor hardware performance in Windows. Collection is made from all servers where 1C servers are installed.
If the processor load percentage counter for the “Processor” view has a high value, you should identify processes that can be stopped without affecting the operation of the server, and also be transferred to other servers.
The “Process” view will allow you to configure monitoring for each individual process, as well as determine which processes are taking up the most CPU time. If only 1C server is installed on the server, then in order to understand what load it puts on the hardware, you need to configure the collection of the following counters:
| \Process("1cv8*")\% Processor Time |
| \Process("ragent*")\% Processor Time |
| \Process("ragent*")\Private Bytes |
| \Process("ragent*")\Virtual Bytes |
| \Process("rmngr*")\% Processor Time |
| \Process("rmngr*")\Private Bytes |
| \Process("rmngr*")\Virtual Bytes |
| \Process("rphost*")\% Processor Time |
| \Process("rphost*")\Private Bytes |
| \Process("rphost*")\Virtual Bytes |
| \Process("1cv8*")\Private Bytes |
| \Process("1cv8*")\Virtual Bytes |
If the current system is in an unsatisfactory condition, then based on the collected measurements, using a linear relationship, the equipment parameters for installing the target system should be calculated.
If the purchase of server equipment is only planned, its parameters can be calculated by emulating the operation of the planned system, but on a smaller scale, using existing equipment. For this purpose, “1C: Test Center” is used, which is included in the 1C Corporate Toolkit. Based on the measurements obtained, using calculation methods, the parameters of the planned system and, accordingly, the requirements for equipment are determined. This test can be used repeatedly for different measurements, having previously supplemented and expanded the functionality. This technique has high accuracy and ease of calculation.
For 1C server roles, MS SQL 2008 DBMS server for 50 users.
According to a server expert, we collect hardware:
Choosing a platform: IBM x3650 M3
Select a processor: Intel Xeon E5506 - 1 pc.
Choosing RAM: 4 sticks of 4GB each
Selecting a hard drive: 3 SAS 146 GB RAID5
Software used:
OS MS Windows 2008 x64
DBMS MS SQL 2008 x64
Server 1C 8.2 x64
Test environment: to carry out load testing, the 1C 8.2 configuration was used: “Standard load test”.
Test progress:
A 1C client session was launched on the local server in agent mode and in testing mode.
In the test configuration, the initial number of emulated standard 1C users creating and deleting documents and reports was specified as 20. The step to increase the number of users after the tests was set to 20 users.
Initially (without user connections), the DBMS occupies 569 MB of RAM (2 databases were created: 1C 8.2 configuration: UPP and test configuration), the memory occupied by the system is 2.56 GB.
During testing (up to 110 users), memory for the DBMS is allocated up to 12 GB, one 1C test session occupies 55 MB (55 MB x 200 = 11 GB). For comparison, one real user session (1C client application) takes about 300 - 500 MB. The size of memory allocated for the 1C client application is indicated for a user working in the standard 1C: Trade or 1C: UPP configuration. The 1C server service (rphost) practically does not use the OP, since it only translates requests from the client part to the DBMS (according to the standard, port TCP 1541 and TCP 475 are used for the 1C security server).
CPU resource usage was shared between the 1C server service (rphost) and the DBMS service (sqlservr). With a load of 40 users, rphost took 37% of the CPU power, sqlservr took 30%. With a load of 60 users, rphost took up 47% of the CPU power, sqlservr took up 29%.
While deleting created documents, the sqlsrvr service accessed the disk subsystem for recording at speeds of up to 6.5 MB/sec (about 52 MB/sec).
The network load between the 1C server and the DBMS (on the local lookback interface) was 10 Mb/s.
Test result produced by the 1C test configuration:
Parameters: Run test 000000006 from 05/24/2012 12:44:16
Standard load test, version 2.0.4.11
Start of testing 05/23/2012 12:36:39. Running time: 57.1 minutes.
Test conditions
"Server 1C: Enterprise: test
Infobase name: testcenter_82
Virtual users: TEST,"
Conclusions:
It is necessary to relax the server configuration, since the current one is 100% redundant for 50 users.
It is necessary to perform testing using a second server to launch emulated users and check the network load, the expected load is 10 Mb/sec.
The 1C architecture consists of 4 blocks: 1C server, DBMS, 1C security server and 1C client. In this test, all these functions were launched on one server.
When there is a heavy load on the 1C server, there are the following recommendations:
Separate the roles of the 1C server, DBMS server, 1C protection server and 1C client applications (for greater performance, it is better to run 1C client applications on a terminal server).
On the DBMS server, you must use the following structure for data storage systems: the OS should be located on RAID 1, DBMS data files (.mdf, .ndf) on a separate RAID 0, log files (.ldf) on a separate RAID 0, temporary files and a swap file on a separate disk.
Results of the TPC-1 load test of 1C performance according to Gilev for a configuration with a file database:
Server performance is assessed not by workload and CPU queues, but by the ability to perform a certain number of operations per unit of time.
Contention for resources such as the processor reduces the speed of operations when response time is determined by:
- operation time
- equipment waiting time
- time of logical waits like locks
The key characteristic is the speed of the operation.
Note. For a processor, the most significant characteristic is the processor frequency and not the load. Below is a screenshot of the test results (Click on the image to enlarge).
System performance and planning of the necessary computing resources for its implementation is a mandatory operation for any implementation or change of an existing IT system.
Most existing performance evaluation methods rely on some type of testing.
There are two main types of testing: component and integral.
Component testing involves testing individual components of a solution, ranging from the performance of processors or storage subsystems to testing the performance of the server as a whole, but without the payload in the form of a particular business application.
The integrated approach is characterized by assessing the performance of the solution as a whole, both its software and hardware parts. In this case, both a business application can be used, which will be used in the final solution, as well as some model applications that emulate some standard business processes and loads.
Our test uses exactly this approach.
We received as a result a certain performance (speed) index. This is the result of the platform as a whole running on our hardware. In the case of the client - server version, this is the result of a complex chain of requests passing through various sections. You get the total actual result, which is determined by the bottleneck in the system. DBMS settings, OS settings, and hardware settings affect the overall performance of the system.
The test evaluates the amount of work per unit of time in one thread and is suitable for assessing the speed of single-threaded loads, including the speed of interface rendering, the impact of costs on maintaining the virtual environment and, if any, transfer of documents, month-end closing, payroll calculation, etc.
Current version: 2.0.011. Version history here: versions.php
You can download it here: http://infostart.ru/public/173394/ or here: performanceTest.cf
The test allows you to measure the performance of the 1c server - DBMS server combination in various versions in multi-threaded operation mode. The test takes 20-30 minutes.
Don't run the test on a server that users are currently working on, or they'll get sad! The test is very stressful!
The test results can be viewed as a report inside the configuration.
Load test TPC-1C Gilev
You can also share results with other people who have completed the test using the "share results" processing. After the exchange, you can compare your results with the results of other people.
More detailed instructions, as well as a discussion of the test, can be found on the page http://infostart.ru/public/173394/.
There are a total of 751 results in the database, last updated on 2018-06-15 06:33:26. The results can be viewed by downloading the test and running the results exchange, or (in a simplified form) here: results.php
Statistics
Results of version 1.x: index_old.php
C3js and d3js are used to build diagrams (c3js depends on it).
| heavenly 20.02.13 — 15:59 |
|
| smitru 1 — 20.02.13 — 16:00 |
|
| ansh15 2 — 20.02.13 — 16:08 |
(0)Old topic |
| heavenly 3 — 20.02.13 — 16:14 |
Xeon X3450 2.67GHz |
| Adimr 4 — 20.02.13 — 16:21 |
|
| smitru 5 — 20.02.13 — 16:34 |
|
| heavenly 6 — 20.02.13 — 16:43 |
|
| Idea? 7 — 20.02.13 — 16:44 |
Should I use the RAID controller built into the motherboard? 1C performance testingor buy an external one? |
| smitru 8 — 20.02.13 — 16:45 |
|
| Fragster 10 — 20.02.13 — 16:49 |
Gilev test single-threaded |
| Fragster 11 — 20.02.13 — 16:50 |
|
| heavenly 12 — 20.02.13 — 16:51 |
|
| Demiurge 13 — 21.02.13 — 07:30 |
|
| el-gamberro 14 — 21.02.13 — 08:05 |
|
| heavenly 15 — 21.02.13 — 09:47 |
|
| heavenly 16 — 21.02.13 — 09:49 |
Get your work in order using the 1C configuration "IT Department Management 8"
ATTENTION! Ctrl-F5 or Ctrl-R
2000
Human.
Background
A mandatory operation for any implementation or change of an existing information system is to assess the required speed of the system and plan the necessary computing resources for its implementation. Currently, there is no exact solution to this problem in general form, and if, despite
its complexity and cost, such an algorithm will be proposed by any manufacturer, then even small changes in hardware, software version, system configuration or the number or standard behavior of users will lead to significant errors.
However, there are plenty of ways to evaluate the software and hardware configuration needed to achieve the required performance. All of these methods can be used in the selection process, but the consumer must understand their applications and limitations.
Most existing performance evaluation methods are based on
or other type of testing.
There are two main types of testing:
component and integral.
When component testing is carried out
testing individual components of the solution, starting from performance
processors or storage subsystems before testing
server performance as a whole, but without payload in the form of one or another
business applications.
Stress Testing
The integral approach is characterized by an assessment
performance of the solution as a whole, both its software and hardware parts.
In this case, it can be used as a business application that will be used
in the final solution, as well as some model applications emulating
some standard business processes and workloads.
Tests TPC and other universal tests allow you to select the most promising platforms and compare offers from different manufacturers, but are only reference information that does not take into account the specifics of the business. Specialized tests allow you to more accurately select a specific server model and its configuration. However, the most informed decisions are made only based on the results of load tests. Only they allow you to optimally configure the selected
server platform and configure it for maximum performance.
What's happened TPC-1C-GILV
This is a series of independent tests designed to evaluate the performance of the 1C:Enterprise 8.1 platform on your computer(s).
Of course, an “independent” test means that it is not sponsored by 1C.
The test is currently available" TPC-A-local Throughput / TPC-1C-GILV-A" (last update - August 2008 version 1.0.3)
Test idea TPC-A-local Throughput / TPC-1C-GILV-A
You download the configuration download file (~400 KB) from this site and upload it to yourself. If you expand the configuration in the file version, then to a large extent the test will test the combination “CPU of your computer - HDD where the base is located.”
If you deploy the configuration in a client-server version, then the CPU of the application server - the CPU of the subdatabase server - HDD - the subdatabase server will be subject to the load.
The test performs intensive recording of 5000 documents. There is no deep meaning in the business logic of the code; the performance of document X, conditionally chosen as a standard, is simply evaluated.
The main beauty of the test is that you don't need to know the technical details. The test runs itself and produces its own score. Besides, you don’t have to tell anyone the result either :)
You can compare the performance of several servers, or one server with different disk subsystem characteristics.
By performing a test from the application server and from the client over the network, you can understand the impact of the network in the area from the client to the server.
How to run a test
Running a test is very easy. You have to press a button
and wait until the test indicator (to the right of the button) reaches 100%.
The test usually lasts about 8 minutes.
What do the test results mean?
The test result is reported as the "write speed" of the test data. The test error is 2 units. For an accurate assessment, you can repeat the test 3 times.
After the test indicator reaches 100%, you will see graphs like this:
Below the graphs are some previously conducted similar tests.
The color of the graph indicates the current quality of the "overall" performance for work without blocking.
The green color of the graph, together with some conditionally selected indicators on the right, allows us to make a cross-platform generalized assessment of “good” performance :)
How to be happy about your test results
You received as a result a certain performance index (count speed). It doesn’t matter whether the result is good or bad - this is the result of the PLATFORM running on your hardware. In the case of a client-server version, this is the result of a complex chain of requests passing through various sections. You get the total actual result, which is determined by the BOTTLE POINT in the system. THERE IS ALWAYS A BOTTLE PLACE!
In other words, both DBMS settings, OS settings, and hardware influence the overall team result :)
Which server is better
This test, performed on a specific server, gives the result based on the totality of hardware settings, operating system, database, etc. However, a high result on a particular server hardware means that, under normal conditions, the same result will be obtained on identical server hardware. This test is a free tool to help you compare the installation of 1C:Enterprise under Windows and Linux, three different DBMSs supported by the 1C:Enterprise 8.1 platform.
Test safety
The test is absolutely safe. It does not lead to a “crash” of the server (there is no “stress” algorithm) and does not require preliminary measures even on a “combat” server. Confidential data is also not recorded in the test results. Information about CPU, RAM, HDD parameters is collected. Device serial numbers are not collected. You can easily verify all this - the test code is 100% open. It is impossible to send any information without your knowledge.
How to publish test results
If you want to help develop the test, you can run a number of tests on your servers. Then leave the general list of tests done only those that you want to publish and send a dt upload with the results.
The data will be manually verified (that it is not incorrect), the test recipient will be added to the “author” column of the tests, and will be added to the download, available for download by everyone.
Classification TPC-A-local Throughput / TPC-1C-GILV-A
The test belongs to the section of universal integral cross-platform tests. Moreover, it is applicable for file and client-server options for using 1C:Enterprise. The test works for all DBMSs supported by 1C.
Universality allows you to make a generalized performance assessment without being tied to a specific typical platform configuration.
On the other hand, this means that for accurate calculations of a custom project, the test allows you to make a preliminary assessment before specialized load testing (for example, using 1C: Test Center).
Note. Test modification " A" means "automatic lock management". After the release of official versions of standard solutions from 1C, it is planned to modify the test to work in the "managed locks" mode and denote it with the letter " M".
Download test
This test is not commercial and is available for free download.
Test results
Top - 3 best client-server installations of 1C on MS SQL Server. You too can get into this table. You can see the results in more detail by downloading the test.
Technical details
What happens in the test within the framework of “one” operation cycle?
An example of executing sql commands can be found in the attached file.
How to measure iron load
It should be noted that the test itself already partially performs the measurement. For a more detailed picture, I recommend using Mark Rusinovich’s Process Explorer utility.
The figure shows an example of measurement for the file version.
Contacts for TPC-1C-GILV
http://gilev.ru/1c/ tpc
test results, development proposals
and send reviews by e-mail: [email protected]
Go to other site materials
| heavenly 20.02.13 — 15:59 |
There is a server on CentOS 6.3 with 64-bit Postgresql 8.4, it also has a 32-bit 1C server 8.2.16.368 installed *there was no money for a 64-bit key* I downloaded Gilev's test as a dt file. I tried changing the Compatibility Mode and Data Blocking Management Mode in this database - the result was the same. Or should this test be run on the server itself? |
| smitru 1 — 20.02.13 — 16:00 |
(0) Gilev has his own forum. Have you tried asking a question there? |
| ansh15 2 — 20.02.13 — 16:08 |
(0)Old topic |
| heavenly 3 — 20.02.13 — 16:14 |
Xeon X3450 2.67GHz |
| Adimr 4 — 20.02.13 — 16:21 |
(0) http://infostart.ru/public/147259/ |
| smitru 5 — 20.02.13 — 16:34 |
(3) “in a software mirror raid” Great... and after that there are complaints about the brakes???? |
| heavenly 6 — 20.02.13 — 16:43 |
(5) it seems like a soft raid gives a very small overhead... but what do you propose to do? Should I use the RAID controller built into the motherboard? or buy an external one? |
| Idea? 7 — 20.02.13 — 16:44 |
Should I use the RAID controller built into the motherboard? or buy an external one? |
| smitru 8 — 20.02.13 — 16:45 |
(6) hardware polybass is better (only it really speeds up reading and does not slow down recording like software) And so - you need to distribute data files, system, page file, db temp TO DIFFERENT MIRRORS (putting the latter on non-mirrors is unnecessary, but on individual devices it is useful) |
| Fragster 10 — 20.02.13 — 16:49 |
Gilev test single-threaded |
| Fragster 11 — 20.02.13 — 16:50 |
(5) it is the mirror raid (1 and 10) that slows down a little |
| heavenly 12 — 20.02.13 — 16:51 |
(7) Based on these considerations, a soft raid was chosen. (8) thanks for the comment, but... this server is installed in a small company for 5-10 users with a small number of documents per day. How justified is it to distribute files across disks, and even buy new disks? |
| Demiurge 13 — 21.02.13 — 07:30 |
(1) why ask specialists who deal with productivity every day when there is mista? :))) |
| el-gamberro 14 — 21.02.13 — 08:05 |
I also don’t understand what this has to do with 1C? |
| heavenly 15 — 21.02.13 — 09:47 |
(14) seems to be a topic in the IT section, not 1C. |
| heavenly 16 — 21.02.13 — 09:49 |
All I have to do is remember where I read about it... |
TurboConf 5 - expanding the capabilities of the 1C Configurator
ATTENTION!
If you have lost the message input window, click Ctrl-F5 or Ctrl-R or the "Refresh" button in the browser.
The topic has not been updated for a long time and has been marked as archived. Adding messages is not possible.
But you can create a new thread and they will definitely answer you!
Every hour on the Magic Forum there are more 2000
Human.