On Wednesday 12 March 2003 23:22, you wrote:

Hi,

> In a nutshell, the performance we've seen with superserver (in
> production the past 18 months) has outstripped classic (the prior 4
> years) by a significant margin in a Windows 2000 deployment.

I am a long time user of Classic on SMP linux machines and yes it is slightly
slower than SS, but (apart from handling SMP correctly), it has two main
advantages over SS for me. Firstly, it is more scalable (in terms of
connections), with SS there is a limit (depending on hardware), on how many
connections you can create before the whole thing grinds to a halt, with
Classic that 'point' is a lot higher. But the main advantage is that because
each connection is a separate process, if one connection misbehaves (crashes
due to bad UDF, killer query etc.), it does no effect the other connections.
In SS, a bad UDF can crash the whole server, and a killer query can effect
performance of other connections etc.

That being said, from what I and others have seen so far with FB1.5, I don't
think performance will be much of an issue <g>

Phil
--
Linux 2.4.4-4GB
6:39am up 17:41, 1 user, load average: 0.39, 0.14, 0.07