For a small system like this, standard SCSI RAID devices may be
adequate, depending on the actual workload and desired throughput.

I feel that this is large enough that the reliability of a *nix is to be
preferred over any windows solution. I would also be looking at the
performance improvements in FB2, and the inexpensive 64 bit commodity
AMD servers.

Windows will not allow you to use the entire 3GB to any impact. The
switch that allows you to use more than 2GB has mixed reviews, mostly
tending toward the negative.

With my opinions on this, and $0.50, you can buy a really bad cup of
coffee.

On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 23:32 +0000, Adam wrote:
> --- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "diegodelafuente"
> <diegodelafuente@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have a Red Hat v9 2.4kernel with Fb 1.5 Superserver. I´am using
> ext
> > 3 for the Partition Type.
> > 100 users use thist Server to access a single Database.
> > The Server Hardware is an IBM Server Series 206, with 3GB Ram and 2
> > disks in Raid 1.
> > Is this OS the best choice for my equipment ?
>
> Do you honestly expect an answer to that?
>
> > Does Fb runs better with a Server 2003 and NTFS ?
>
> No better, I doubt any worse either. Both have benefits and issues.
>
> > Does Fb Clasic Server run s better for 100 users with 3Gb of Ram ?
>
> Classic server runs better where multiple CPUs are involved,
> Superserver runs better where the different connections run similar
> queries and can share the cache. I would think that (unless you have
> bumped up the cache size significantly) 100 users would take under a
> Gig.
>
> >
> > Another Question.
> > How can I check if The Raid Card is apropiate for my workload ?
> > Can I see some statictis or something else ? I have not experience
> > with Linux.
>
> To be honest, you are dealing with a database server for 100 users.
> You mention 2 disks? What are they? (Better be SCSI). You may want to
> consider a separate disk for the tmp space.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>