Subject | SS vs Classic |
---|---|
Author | ibase@telectronica.com.ar |
Post date | 2000-06-15T14:17Z |
Hi!
I am running IB 4.0 on a Redhat Linux. I´m planning to migrate
since I have a number of problems with my 4.0, so I want to decide
between 6.0 two flavors.
I read the article in interbase.com that concludes saying that SS is
the future of Interbase and that Classic version is released for some
kind of backward compatibility, but I have a doubt about this point:
when I have a problem with a mad gds_inet_server, I just kill that
process, delete the interbase.log and that's all, the remaining
processes doesn't notice about it. IF something like this happened
to my SS version, I wouldn´t be able to kill a single thread, I 'd have
to restart the whole RDBMS. Am I right or is SS stable enough to
relief my concerns?
TIA,
Pablo
I am running IB 4.0 on a Redhat Linux. I´m planning to migrate
since I have a number of problems with my 4.0, so I want to decide
between 6.0 two flavors.
I read the article in interbase.com that concludes saying that SS is
the future of Interbase and that Classic version is released for some
kind of backward compatibility, but I have a doubt about this point:
when I have a problem with a mad gds_inet_server, I just kill that
process, delete the interbase.log and that's all, the remaining
processes doesn't notice about it. IF something like this happened
to my SS version, I wouldn´t be able to kill a single thread, I 'd have
to restart the whole RDBMS. Am I right or is SS stable enough to
relief my concerns?
TIA,
Pablo