In general what I said is my experience and this is bound to databases at
all...
and true more ore less for all OS (IX/WIN etc)
- have stiped disks
- have a raid controller with cache and OS buffers for IO to plenty of ...
- use more then one IO controller and more disks for gbaks
- have time to play with
Pavel Cisar at the Fulda Firebird conference drops some words also on that
topic ...perfomance... Raid systems...
and I agree with him.

You can gain 10 times more speed - we did it with a UNIX system by simple
setting up a RAID 1 with mirrored disks say 5 disks ...
The trick is to build a striped Volume so that the IO is optimized. The more
disks you have,
the better is it (practically keep number of disks <10). Why? Tt is simple
the parallel movement of n - disk-heads they
can be faster then a single disk.head to collect the data from disk.
And you dont use the whole space also...together with good ICP VORTEX (or
other io card with CACHE!!!) the physical IO is down and the logical IO
stays up.
At our production HP-UX system, we have cache hits over 90% leading to 1:10
(physical to logical) IO on the
disk volumes of the IB database files. Ofcourse not at the GBAK times but
when the users are working
(selects... inserts.. updates etc) say normal stuffthe databases are
force-write off.
But you can check such a IO power also for volume processing when
copying simply big datafiles from "a" to "b" and check the time before /
after having such a disk array.

Nobody shd think that a 72gb 15000 UPM seagate plugged in and used as it -
will run as best /as expected. And then if not -simply purchase a box with
200 mhz + 512mb ram more will do...

yours
Claus

----- Original Message -----
From: Oliver Brockmann <oliver.brockmann@...>
To: <firebird-support@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] Re: Firebird-1.0.2.908 on Windows 2003
Server


> Christian Gütter wrote:
>
> > Hello Oliver,
> >
> > Friday, July 25, 2003, 8:50:00 PM, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Why did you move from Win2000 to Win2003 ?
> >>>
> >>
> >>because we need it's terminal server features in order to
> >>provide access to the application on the server. users
> >>log on via the terminal services and work locally.
> >
> >
> > Isn't this possible with Windows 2000 Server, too?
> >
> yes. but you have certain shortcomings concerning color
> depth (important feature for our application) and screen
> resolution. we also need to adopt client settings to match
> different bandwiths. we have users dialing in over 64k and
> those coming over a 2mbit line...
>
> for clarification: we are no m$ masochists. we are planing
> to move the db to a red hat machine asap. however the server
> has been switched and i cannot roll back and an appropriate
> rh machine is not available at the moment. so i need a
> quick fix...
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> firebird-support-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>