Subject Re: Important and Urgent question in a change in our Server
Author Adam
> I'm not sure that it will be our best chice now.
> I'm reading then comparation in
> od the two type of dbs and in this pages I read that Clasic Server
> is an old arquitecture closely to be out.

Not really. In fact, Classic server has just been introduced on
Windows in Firebird 1.5. Whilst Superserver is more efficient in
various areas, Classic server has an advantage in other areas.

Perhaps you found this document which does appear to be out of date.

(in case someone needs to know, linked from main page -> FAQ)

The quick start guide has a whole section on which to choose, and the
benefits and drawbacks of both.

> And it says that with this
> version I have more chances of corruption. Now I´m affraid to use it.
> I will test the Clasic Server more before think to change it.

Although Classic is listed as experimental under windows in some
(older) documents, I doubt anyone today would think it less stable
than Superserver.

In fact, Classic handles corruption much better IMO. If you have
corruption in a single database at a record level, and you run a query
that touches that record, the database engine will crash. With
Superserver, the process panics and restarts, causing ALL users in ALL
databases to lose their uncommitted work. With Classic, only the
process(es) that touch the damaged record are affected.

Superserver also struggles with limitations of 32 bit address space
for memory when there is a large number of connections to a large
number of databases. Superserver also fails to take full advantage of
multiprocessor machines. Classic does not have these limitations.

As it says in the quick start guide:

"As you can see, neither of the architectures is better in all
respects. This is hardly surprising: we
wouldn't maintain two architectures if one of them was an all-fronts