Subject Re: [firebird-support] Classic or superserver?
Author Mitch Peek
Svein Erling Tysvaer wrote:

>>The database will be fairly high volume of inserts, and less frequently,
>>a few nasty queries for reporting ( a few times per day).
>Unless you've already done so, taking a very close look at these few,
>nasty queries may prove benefitial, there's no need to spend USD 5K on a
>server if it all can be solved by tweaking a handful of select statements.
I have already done so, ad nauseum, and continue to do so. They aren't
*that* bad, but statistical information spanning a good number of tables
and a great deal of detail data simply takes some time. Actually,
nearly all the "report" queries are all stored procedures.

But, as you said, this really wasn't my question, but a very good point
had it not been addressed.

I could point out, however, that things are running as it is, but I am
just beginning to see some signs of deterioration. Being proactive...

Currently, the middle tier apps are serving 40+ clients and condensing
those connections. Each of the 40+ clients are running firebird in a
client/server serving up to 15 clients themselves. So, data is actually
coming into this one server from over 500 points of entry. Current
machine is a decent machine ( single processor, raid 1) 2 gig of ram on
win 2003 server. however the middle tier apps are running on the same
box. This is probably not a good idea, thus, my previous proposal to
move them off onto a separate box and into a DMZ for added security.

Thanks Set!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]