----- Original Message -----
From: "mohamed.banaouas" <mohamed.banaouas@...>
To: <firebird-support@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:34 AM
Subject: [firebird-support] Re: firebird classic on windowx 2000|xp|2003


Our application (client-side) maintain opened the firebird connection
during all the user session, so I think there is no need to lunch
fbserver copy any moore ? Unless the lunch concerns each query...
I asked the question about windows/classic because I did't notices
many threads about it. I'm really interested on feedback about such
association.

thanks in advance

--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Adam" <s3057043@...> wrote:
>
> --- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "mohamed.banaouas"
> <mohamed.banaouas@> wrote:
> >
> > hi all,
> > Does any one tested firebird classic on windows plateform ?
> > I mean, is it faster than superserver, even if it requires moore ram?
>
> It is just different to Superserver. Superserver has a shared cache
> which all connections can use, whereas the cache in Classic is per
> connection (and hence the cache is usually smaller). It is cheaper to
> establish a new thread than a new process, so another win for
> Superserver. But Superserver can not make use of SMP. It is bound to a
> single CPU core, whereas classic can. This is a big win for classic.
>
> If there was an architecture that performed better under all
> situations, I highly doubt both of them would be maintained.
>
> Adam
>