>> Hmmm... 200 connections would do it for me but 10-15 is nowhere
>> near enough. Connection pooling does not fit the security model
>> I have adopted, indeed one of my applications maintains two
>> connections per user - so I think I am stuck with Superserver.

> Not by any means. Classic will handle that standing in it's head.
> If you're concerned about Classic running away with all you RAM,
> tune down some of it's memory limits:

...

> In short, if you've got a serious job to do, and you've got
> multiple CPU's (logical or physical), I'd say Classic will serve
> you better.

Its certainly worth experimenting with I guess, when I can get the
time. There are obviously other considerations besides memory;
process context switching is more expensive than thread switching,
the locking and memory sharing models will differ in performance
and the impacts of such things will vary between applications and
all this will be exacerbated by the sheer number of processes
involved in such a large number of connections.

There are also stability issues to consider. So far all my testing
and development has been done with Superserver. Sure they are
supposed to be interchangeable, but I've heard that sort of thing
before!

It takes time to try these things out and decide what fits best.

Side Note: My understanding of HT is that two logical processors
on the same physical processor can execute threads from the same
process but not threads from different processes. If I am right
then HT will offer no real benefit to Classic.

>> > Forgive me if components of this reply are incorrect - I'm
>> > still learning...
>>
>> Me too!
>>

> It's heaps good fun though, eh!

Its fun when the pressure is off. Not so much when someone seems
to steal all the hours in my day. :-(

--
Geoff Worboys
Telesis Computing