To place our RRVM system in the right perspective with previously published performance results, we run the widely used TPC-A database benchmark on top of it. The same benchmark was run on the original RVM system and its performance was reported in [25]. In the original RVM system, the log file and the data file were stored on different local disks, so as to eliminate any interference between the accesses to the different files.
Figure 9 shows the performance of our RRVM systems, and the original (unmodified) RVM system as a function of the number of accounts. In this experiment accesses to the database are sequential. We see that although the original RVM system barely achieves more than 40 transactions per second, RRVM-ETHERNET achieves 200 transactions per second, while RRVM-FDDI achieves more than 260 transactions per second - an order-of-magnitude improvement over the original RVM. We make similar observations by looking at the experiments for random accesses and localized accesses in figures 10 and 11 respectively. Both RRVM systems are significantly better than the unmodified RVM. Their performance improvements range from a factor of 2.6 to 6.
Figure 9: TPCA-A: Sequential Accesses
Figure 10: TPCA-A: Random Accesses
Figure 11: TPCA-A: Localized Accesses