--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Adam" <s3057043@...> wrote:

>
> > I'm not sure that it will be our best chice now.
> > I'm reading then comparation in http://firebird.sourceforge.net/
> > 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.

>
> http://www.ibphoenix.com/main.nfs?

a=ibphoenix&page=ibp_ss_vs_classic

>
> (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

> loser."
>
> Adam
>

Adam.
The link you show is the one I saw.
In this link says that the "future" of firebind point
to "Superserver" only. And my doubt is to install Clasic Server now
and in future versions (2, Vulcan, 3) have only "Superserver".
But you are saying that we have both versions in the future.

The reason that I´m thinking to change is because my Server is
running two slow and the Procesor is always at a high level of use.
I Suppose that the reason is that in our app we can run a lot of
diferents and complex queries. And in this scenario I read Classic
server fits better, because a complex query can handle all other
until the one finish. And I have 3Gb of Ram and a HT procesor, wich
I can use at full capacity in clasic Server.

Helen:
Please sorry if I post a lot of messages, but in my country
(Argentina) there is very poor information about Firebird.
I must bought Helen´s book from another country and is my
only "help" to learn and handle Fb.

Again, sorry for my English

Diego

diego