At 10:10 PM 24/04/2005 +1000, you wrote:

> > In article <E1DPeoP-0007RY-8e@...-solutions.de>, Steffen Heil wrote:
> > > If you use the same architecture of firebird on both systems, you should
> > > propably have no recognizable difference.
> > > It's the same code!
> >
> > I realise that, I'm looking for the different performance running the
> > same firebird, on the same database, same application, different OS.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick
>
>if you go TO linux - you might want to use forced writes off. if this is the
>case and your application demands a lot of writes, then you may see some
>preformance improvement on linux over windows.

Well, it's a thought...but only if you have excellent UPS protection and a
nightwatch alert. In that case, it's worth considering switching FW off as
a transient option when you've got big batches to run out of hours.

>Otherwise - there ain't going to be much recognisable difference anywhere.

This can't be predicted. A dedicated Linux server in runlevel 3 can devote
a larger proportion of resources to the database server. There ought to be
less contention also for resources for network services, without WNET
traffic to bother the server. Provided the applications are well-written,
the throughput should be better on an equivalent machine that's not being
asked to do other things like email and web services and service a GUI.

The best argument you can put together is to set up a Linux box and
benchmark performance using your own applications and an identical
database. But I don't know where you dreamed up this "doubling of
performance" claim from. Performance is not the visible issue when
contemplating moving your database server off Windows. Continuity of
service and reduced interference are. If you get dramatically faster
throughput as well, consider it a bonus.

./hb