Classic certainly helped a couple of ugly reports I have but..



I had a problem with Classic on a W2K3 duel processor server. It kept
freezing up periodically to the point where I had to uninstalled classic and
install superserver.

The problem went away. This was using V1.53. If memory serves, seemed like
the spawned processes would sometimes be left hanging out there (in task
manager).

Kevin







_____

From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nigel Weeks
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 6:22 PM
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [firebird-support] Should I use classic or superserver?



You can never go wrong with Classic, especially when you get to those "Nasty
Queries for Reports"

N.
-----Original Message-----
From: firebird-support@ <mailto:firebird-support%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@ <mailto:firebird-support%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Mitch Peek
Sent: Friday, 13 October 2006 11:40 AM
To: firebird-support@ <mailto:firebird-support%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
Subject: [firebird-support] Should I use classic or superserver?

I posted this once before, thought I would try again... Any suggestions?

Here is the scenario....

I have several middle tier (5 presently )app servers each maintaining
3 or 4 connections to a single database.

I could host the middle tier apps on 1 or more servers in a DMZ, and
leave the database on its own server, the configuration for which could
be about anything we choose.

I was thinking 1 or two small servers for the middle tier apps, a
separate single machine ( perhaps multiple processors if classic is
used) (1.5.3 BTW). in addition, in house, perhaps as many as 5
additional connections directly to the database ( not through the
middle tiers).

My question, is whether to use superserver, or classic in this
scenario? either way, define the hardware for the database server...
and perhaps the firebird.conf settings, in an optimal situation.

Virtually no limits to memory, machine, etc. other then I would
like to limit the cost of a new DB server to between 5k-10K US.

The database will be fairly high volume of inserts, and less frequently,
a few semi-nasty queries for reporting ( a few times per day).

So we are looking at between 15 and 25 simultaneous connections with
nearly constant activity on inserts/updates, and only 5 or 6 direct
connections with only occasional
queries. (insert volume averages around 500-1000 records per minute, with
occasional spikes up to 30,000 inserts per minute.

Suggestions?

Thanks,
Mitchell Peek

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





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