At 04/22/2002 11:11 AM, you wrote:

>Thanks for reposting your response.
>
>The lack of a 64-bit I/O version of the Linux classic server is an obstacle
>for me.

There are problems. The developers thought they had it running, but to
their surprise it wasn't. I know that they are trying to make it work,
since apparently one of the developers does need it to work for one of his
clients.

> A possible workaround for me would be to run multiple instances of
>the SuperServer Firebird on one machine. But, from what I've read, multiple
>instances of Firebird can't run on the same machine. Is this true?

Yes it's true.

>It would be ok if multiple instances of Firebird, running on different
>processors could not access the same database because my application is
>partitioned across multiple databases.
>
>Another workaround would be to use the classic version with multiple
>database files to get over the 2GB limit. But the gain would have to be
>justifiable before I would go that route. I've read that the classic server
>does not perform as well as the superserver and that using the classic
>server in a multi-processor environment only yields a 20% performance gain.
>Not quite linear scalability. Does the 20% performance gain on a dual
>processor machine match your experience?

I can't give you information here, since I only use Windows and not Linux,
and I don't have access to a multi-processor system. Some on this list do
have the experience with multi-processor and using the classic architecture.

But, as always, the design of your database and queries do make a
difference in the performance as well. Don't just look at the hardware for
performance gain(you probably already knew this), look at the whole picture.


Daniel Rail
Senior System Engineer
ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.accramed.ca)