Subject | RE: [IB-Architect] Pros and cons... |
---|---|
Author | Phil Shrimpton |
Post date | 2000-03-16T16:22:36Z |
> From: "Markus Kemper" <mkemper@...>Hi,
> I'll take a whack at this one. We've been discussing thisI certainly think that if you could combine the 'best' bits of both
> issue internally quite a bit. Classic does have some nice
> benefits over SuperServer at this stage in the game. I
> think that most if not all of those benefits could be
> implemented into the SuperServer engine.
architectures into one version, that would be the way to go.
> > I like the ability to be able to kill a client in LinuxIn development it is a must. In production, it is very useful not only for
>
> May I ask when and why you find this a benefit.
those bad queries you have missed :-), but for 'users' who disconnect badly
(using the on/off switch). I have been to customers sites where there has
been 10 processes and only one connected user. Some applications I provide
'views' so users can use Crystal reports etc. to do their own 'ad-hoc'
reports, and it only takes a really bad piece of SQL to bring everything to
a stand still for hours. For all the above situations, I can sort out
without stopping the server on the classic architecture, but using
superserver normally requires a reboot.
> Some of the other benefits of Classic to date are:You could implement some extra triggers for 'users', AfterLogin,
>
> b) A client crash does not bring everyone down.
>
> So I'd rather see us
> continue to make SuperServer more stable vs. going the
> route of trying to react to a crash and continue work
> the other clients. It would be nice if the engine
> could be more intelligent about reporting a crash so
> that it was easier to identify and reproduce and then
> fix.
BeforeLogout, AfterCrash, AfterTimeOut. That way you could use events that
an external program could either kill the process, send an email to support,
phone somebody's mobile etc. etc.
> c) SMP support. Classic scales better by design at thisI did not think Superserver scaled at all on SMP machines, I thought it took
> point. This could be implemented in the SuperServer,
> it just takes time.
a performance hit?
Cheers
Phil