Why wouldn't it if it is the only significant process running. Moving from
a 512MB configuration to a 1GB configuration makes a significant improvement
in performance.

JAC.

----- Original Message -----
From: Leyne, Sean <InterbaseArchitecture@...>
To: <IB-Architect@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: [IB-Architect] UDF replacement: native shared libraries vs. J
ava


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Chapman [mailto:jason@...]
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 2:06 PM
> To: IB-Architect@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [IB-Architect] UDF replacement: native shared
> libraries vs. J ava
>
> <snip>
>
> That depends, we run with 1.6GB of db & 1gb of RAM. This means that a
> significant part of the db is in memory...<snip>
>
>
> Jason,
>
> (as a point of reference, more that a comment of your statement)
>
> As I understand it, without adjusting some of the IB parameters, in
> fact, your 1gb of RAM may not actually being used for the db (or by the
> OS).
>
> I recall reading somewhere that NT uses a maximum of 512Mb for it's file
> cache. In that case, you would need to specifically configure IB in
> order to it to "force" the other 512mb to be used for it own purposes.
>
>
> Sean
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>