I know virtually nothing about hardware, and cannot answer your
questions. But if you treat your Firebird database as a client/server
database ought to be treated, then your requirements seem to be very
modest. At my work, the main database is about 1 GB (three main tables
with a few million records), and I think we also have one database of
about 10 GB (with very light use). The number of concurrent users in
the main database is probably slightly more than what you have, but
most of them only does simple queries.

Do things sensibly (don't use long-running transactions, think in
terms of queries rather than tables etc.) and I'd be surprised if you
got much trouble with Firebird.

Set

--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "m_theologos" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have a server with
> - 4 x Opteron 848 2.2 GHz CPU
> - 8 GB RAM
> - RAID10 SATA on 3ware 9550SX (PCI-X) controller
> with 4 7200rpm disks (16MB cache)
> - 1Gb NIC
> - RAID1 SCSI320 on LSI Logic with 2 x 15k disks
>
> Also we have
> - one FDB for our accounting program (~21 MB).
> - Tables inside about 25.000 recs. (very small grow expected)
> - 10-15 users.
> - average load.
>
> - one FDB for our CRM (~30 MB)
> - The main table (wide enough) has about 16.000 recs. (small grow
> expected)
> - 20 users.
> - average load.
>
> - one FDB for our content management program (books/images aso) (~60
> MB)
> - Tables inside about 40.000 recs (we expect to grow to 200.000
> recs).
> - 10 users.
> - no heavy load.
>
> - other (smaller) FDB.
>
> We have some questions:
>
> 1. Does work FB 1.5.3 on a 64-bit Windows 2003 Enterprise?
>
> 2. We think to put 2 (or 3) superservers on CPU 1 and 2 and each of
> them to have its firebird.conf in its directory listening on ports
> 3051 and 3052. Then the accounting program will point to SS on CPU 1
> and port 3051 and the CRM (and others) to the SS on CPU 2 and port
> 3052. Will this scenario work? How can we specify the port in the
> connection string which now is like SERVER:\FDB\Acc.FDB?
>
> 2a. Its worth to do the above thing (ie. to put 2 or more SS
> instances) on our hardware?
>
> 3. Do you think that the storage layer isn't fast enough for the
> FDBs? (we also have xls, doc and some jpg (not many) moving arround.
> The HDD time (on Win's performance monitor the Average Queue Length
> is at approx. 400 units (ie. on screen scale which is between 0-100
> at 2-5 with sparks at 40 and more rarely to 80-100).