Is the Classic Server a better choice for this kind of set up?
It would mean 500 extra processes - are they lighter compared to the
Super Server process?

--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Adam" <s3057043@...> wrote:
>
>
> > Using a cache setting of 1024 pages and a page size of 4KB, each
> > database would need 4MB of cache. Accordingly, 500 databases
would need
> > only 2GB of RAM.
> >
> > This is not an exceptional amount of memory.
>
> Sean,
>
> It is exceptional for a single 32 bit fbserver process. I have no idea
> about SPARC though (how many bit is that platform?).
>
> I personally wouldn't use the SS engine to handle that sort of number
> of databases. We had some problems when there were 30 databases so we
> switched to classic on those servers (search archives around late feb
> early mar 06), and it has been seemless since.
>
> SS has additional problems if corruption occurs in a single database,
> it will restart the service, abandoning the active work in 500
> databases. With CS, only the connection to the database that
> encountered the corruption is lost.
>
> 500 databases doesn't really tell you much though. I mean, depending
> on the size of the database and the frequency and complexity of
> operations, for some databases, running 4 on a single server would be
> a bad idea, and others could be hundreds. Also, we do not know whether
> 500 will actually be accessed at a single time, or whether there is
> 500 potential databases, but chances are only 30 will be hit at any
> point in time.
>
> Personally I wouldn't lose too much sleep over the question, we
> switched from superserver to classic with under 3 minutes of downtime
> on each of our production servers.
>
> Adam
>