> > SuperServer will be more scalable, but it's still in the works.
>
> Nigel, Would love to go that way to Classic but, ...
>
> will I run out of resources with so many potential users?

Both SS and CS swell a little with each additional user.
SS can share cached results between threads, CS can cache per transaction on
each server, not between running servers. They end up growing at around the
same rate, once you include the recordsets you start to cache.

TIP. Use a Unix box for the DB server. Process startup time and context
switching time is less than on a windows box - you'll be able to launch and
move around more CS servers per second, meaning faster times for your users.
Which unix? FreeBSD is lighter on process switching again that Linux, but
it's got to be what you're comfortable with.

>
> Is there a limit at which you should go SS and not Classic?

Only for single-processor boxes that do massive amounts of near-identical
read queries. Then the ability to cache results across threads really comes
into play.

> Is there a limit at which we need to consider a different
> architecture?

As soon as you want to use over 1 processor, switch to Classic.

Nige.

DISCLAIMER. People on the list, don't hesitate to say I'm incorrect. I'm
learning too.