Steve Wiser wrote:

> The Wogster wrote:
>
>>I think the key here, is All of this is running on one machine.
>>Firebird and Apache are both memory heavy, and with that many
>>connections network heavy applications. Windows (any version), is a
>>resource hog as well.
>>
>>Your better off running 2 machines one for Firebird and one for Apache,
>>if the Windows licence for a second machine is too expensive, run one on
>>a stripped down Linux ( install only the pieces that are absolutely
>>needed ). I would run Firebird on the Linux box, and run with only
>>Firebird and root (Administrator) as users. Essentially the database
>>server would be a black-box appliance, with lots of disk, lots of RAM,
>>good place for RAID drives, and only the database to use it all.
>>
>>Often such Linux boxes run headless, there is no monitor, keyboard or
>>mouse hooked up, so nobody can goof with it. If you need to be able to
>>do maintenance, there is a package that works as a web interface, that
>>you can use, I forget the name of it.
>>
>>Personally, I would run Apache on another box set up the same, but
>>that's just personal preferance, Linux is a lot better at that stuff
>>then Windows of any version.
>>
>>W
>>
>>
>
> Yes, it is also a better security practice to separate your web server
> from the database! If you do this you also might as well make the
> database server inaccessible except through the web server and you will
> both improve the scalability but also increase the security of the data.
>

Yup....

As I said, it's one place where Linux excels, multiple server appliances
that have a specific job, for example a database server, a web server, a
file/print server, and you can't beat the licence cost......

W