Subject | Re: Recommend type on linux: superserver or classical? |
---|---|
Author | Alexander V.Nevsky |
Post date | 2003-07-15T18:43Z |
--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "tdtappe" <tappe@t...> wrote:
more fast response in low loaded system or more fast execution of
many simultaneous similar short queries - you need SS, if you need
high load ability - at least part of users will run long heavy queries
(reports for exampe) - you need CS to allow to work other users. Note
- CS requires more RAM, each connection is separated process which
need memory for cashe and for own needs.
have better load ability than FB 1, but not as good as CS.
Best regards, Alexander.
> What is the recommended server type on a linux box?Heiko, more significant is what this users will to do. If you need
> Or should I use different types if we talk about
> different numbers of concurrent users?
>
> up to 5
> 5-10
> 10-20
> 20-40
> >40
more fast response in low loaded system or more fast execution of
many simultaneous similar short queries - you need SS, if you need
high load ability - at least part of users will run long heavy queries
(reports for exampe) - you need CS to allow to work other users. Note
- CS requires more RAM, each connection is separated process which
need memory for cashe and for own needs.
> Do both take advantage of multiple processors?CS only.
> Will there be a difference if we talk about FB 1.5 instead of 1.0.3?Personally I use CS only, but people who tried FB 1.5 SS says it
have better load ability than FB 1, but not as good as CS.
Best regards, Alexander.