At 11:00 PM 5/12/2005 +0000, you wrote:

>Not sure who needs to know this so sorry for the OT post.
>
>A number of support threads have mistakenly advised or questioned
>whether Classic Server is considered stable on Windows. From my
>understanding, it is considered stable, and the experimental title
>was mainly due to lack of performance measurements.
>
>Googling for the classic vs superserver ibphoenix article I really
>must bookmark at some point in time, I found another reference that
>appears out of date.
>
>http://www.firebirdsql.org/manual/qsg15-classic-or-super.html
>
>----
>
>
>Classic
>
>Fully mature on Linux; still somewhat experimental on Windows.
>
>and
>
>If you're still not sure what to choose (maybe you find all this tech
>talk a little overwhelming), use this rule of thumb:
>
> * On Windows, choose Superserver.
> * On Linux, just pick one or the other. In most circumstances,
>chances are that you won't notice a performance difference.
>
>----
>
>Seems to imply that unless you know what you are doing dont use
>classic on Windows, when the choice between classic and superserver
>is really about whether you prefer the advantage of a shared cache or
>the advantage of spreading the workload across multiple CPUs.

So - do we take it that you are offering to update the QSG? Contrary to
popular belief, there is no legion of elves up at the North Pole
frantically working 24/7 to keep up with demand for documentation. (It
would be nice, though....)

Here follows an overt Plug ---

In this community, documentation is written and updated by people like you
- those who know enough about Firebird to know when something is out of
date, who care enough to do something about it and who are willing and able
to spend the time. They are astonishingly few in number and by no means
available 24/7 (or even 12/12!)

If you're interested, sign up in firebird-docs.

./heLen