On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 14:39, Nick Upson wrote:

> I've never seen a mention of this before, could you expand

Expand on the performance gain between Win2k and Linux, or Linux w/o X
vs Linux w/ X.

Win2k vs Linux

With Linux you can not only compile a custom kernel with only the
necessities for your Firebird server. You can also do a very minimal
install with little to no services other than Firebird running. So the
overhead generated by Linux will less than the overhead of Win2k. This
can be expanded to many more details, which all sum up to the above.


Linux w/o X vs Linux w/ X

Well that's basically the same as above. One of the more resource
intensive part of any computer is the display. If you have no graphical
interface, your resources can be allocated to other things.

IMHO, if the machine is to be a server, a GUI has no businesses being
installed. Go use a workstation with a GUI.

Let the server do it's job of serving.

If you must install a gui, then when you are not sitting in front of the
machine, make sure it is not in run level 5. Use something like run
level 3, and make sure that the only services started and stopped when
switching run levels are the ones that deal with the display. Mouse,
xfs, etc.

FYI, I do not believe you can run Win2k without a display, or for that
matter without explorer running. So even if you do not have a monitor
attached, some resources are still being used, or wasted.

If you must use Windows, use one of the server editions. Hopefully with
those you can turn off the display, explorer, and other tings that will
not be used from a command line stand point of view.

> In article <1051632729.2541.18.camel@...-studios.com>, William L.
> Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > Good move. You should see a huge performance gain. Especially if you run
> > Firebird on a Linux server without X.
> >

--
Sincerely,
William L. Thomson Jr.
Support Group
Obsidian-Studios, Inc.
3548 Jamestown Ln.
Jacksonville, FL 32223
Phone/Fax 904.260.2445
http://www.obsidian-studios.com