| Subject | Re: [ib-support] IB Performance |
|---|---|
| Author | Claudio Valderrama C. |
| Post date | 2001-10-20T03:35:13Z |
""Darryl VanDorp"" <dvandorp@...> wrote in message
news:DEEMLEKOEKNPAOHPNOCKCEOBCAAA.dvandorp@......
operating system, so this is indirectly our concern.
A year or more ago, I read an analysis of the main differences between Srv
and Wks and they were, assuming memory doesn't fail:
- Some artificial limit on the number of computers linked in a peer to peer
way. This is 10 for Wks. I think IB using TCP is not affected.
- Differences in the quanta assigned to processes. Srv gives a longer time
to each thread before suspending it.
- There's a thread in Wks that surveys permanently the registry to stop you
from changing the place where the registry says whether it's Wks or Srv.
Some reasons for this are not giving you the same settings than Srv and
allow that third party programs can detect reliably if they are being
installed on Srv of Wks, both for compatibility and price structure.
- In Wks, the foreground process gets more CPU time. In Srv, since it's
assumed its main task is to run services, foreground process doesn't get
more CPU than background processes.
- There's a difference in the number of file cache size or paged memory
(can't remember which) where Srv uses more.
- Furthermore, Srv allows extensions to handle more RAM memory than Wks can
manage.
These were (from my memory) the differences between NT4 flavors. About W2k,
can't comment.
So, basically, if you don't need Srv for another tasks, FB will do fine with
Wks and you can spend the bucks in other issues.
C.
--
Claudio Valderrama C. - http://www.cvalde.com - http://www.firebirdSql.org
Independent developer
Owner of the Interbase® WebRing
news:DEEMLEKOEKNPAOHPNOCKCEOBCAAA.dvandorp@......
> Why you would want to run IB server on Windows 2k Server is beyond me.LOGINs)
> There is no "user" limit as IB just runs on a open port and users don't
> need an account (hence the 10 concurrent user limit of win2k is for
>We are diverting from IB/FB, but well, the engine gets installed above some
> Save all that money you would spend on Win2k Server license's and CAL and
> buy more memory or a faster HD for Win2k Prof and you'll be much happier.
>
> Microsoft wants you to believe that Win2k Server will run your stuff
> better but is there any empirical evidence?
operating system, so this is indirectly our concern.
A year or more ago, I read an analysis of the main differences between Srv
and Wks and they were, assuming memory doesn't fail:
- Some artificial limit on the number of computers linked in a peer to peer
way. This is 10 for Wks. I think IB using TCP is not affected.
- Differences in the quanta assigned to processes. Srv gives a longer time
to each thread before suspending it.
- There's a thread in Wks that surveys permanently the registry to stop you
from changing the place where the registry says whether it's Wks or Srv.
Some reasons for this are not giving you the same settings than Srv and
allow that third party programs can detect reliably if they are being
installed on Srv of Wks, both for compatibility and price structure.
- In Wks, the foreground process gets more CPU time. In Srv, since it's
assumed its main task is to run services, foreground process doesn't get
more CPU than background processes.
- There's a difference in the number of file cache size or paged memory
(can't remember which) where Srv uses more.
- Furthermore, Srv allows extensions to handle more RAM memory than Wks can
manage.
These were (from my memory) the differences between NT4 flavors. About W2k,
can't comment.
So, basically, if you don't need Srv for another tasks, FB will do fine with
Wks and you can spend the bucks in other issues.
C.
--
Claudio Valderrama C. - http://www.cvalde.com - http://www.firebirdSql.org
Independent developer
Owner of the Interbase® WebRing