Subject | Re: firebird classic on windowx 2000|xp|2003 |
---|---|
Author | mohamed.banaouas |
Post date | 2008-01-25T09:24:52Z |
--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Helen Borrie <helebor@...> wrote:
you start with that? Particularly read the Fb 1.5 release notes on
the subject, plus the Installation Notes in both the Quick Start Guide
and the release notes.
Adam and Sean. Really, you are wasting your time and our time by
choosing to take this attitude.
I never had in mind to disturb participants of this group.
Sometime I reply with delay to some posts.
In any case, I think that experiences must be shared and if I can give
my contribution to any body asking about something I tried before it
will be a pleasure for me.
I read the release notes and learned many things (not yet enougth ...)
but it mentionned that classic/windows is expérimental, and that made
me looking for feedback.
cache are accessed quicker than on disk.
was a typo. On your high-spec'd machine, with a 4K page size you
might reasonably start with a page cache of 128 to 512 pages if RAM is
not being used excessively by other applications.
usage on 4 Go installed, and fbserver memory usage is about 256 Mo.
There is no other main application on this server.
>the "ghost connections" that Anderson described.
> At 10:53 AM 25/01/2008, you wrote:
> >usually, fbguard role is to restart fbserver when il falls down.
> >but in classic, fb process terminate at the end of connexion so no
> >need to restart it.
>
> Exactly....and having fbguard running with fb_inet_server can cause
>gotten around to studying the documentation about Classic. Why don't
> Regarding your original question, I see good signs that you have not
you start with that? Particularly read the Fb 1.5 release notes on
the subject, plus the Installation Notes in both the Quick Start Guide
and the release notes.
>some people have taken the time and trouble to provide for you, e.g.,
> I also note that you don't bother to read the detailed replies that
Adam and Sean. Really, you are wasting your time and our time by
choosing to take this attitude.
>Sorry for wasting your time.
I never had in mind to disturb participants of this group.
Sometime I reply with delay to some posts.
In any case, I think that experiences must be shared and if I can give
my contribution to any body asking about something I tried before it
will be a pleasure for me.
I read the release notes and learned many things (not yet enougth ...)
but it mentionned that classic/windows is expérimental, and that made
me looking for feedback.
> And 20480 really is a ridiculous setting for the page cache inSuperserver and IMPOSSIBLE for Classic.
> The "more is better" rule does NOT apply to page cache.Do you mean there is drawback to put so high value? usually pages in
cache are accessed quicker than on disk.
>For Classic, the default page cache size is 75 pages, assuming a pagesize of 2048 or 4096 bytes. That's why you were asked whether 20480
was a typo. On your high-spec'd machine, with a 4K page size you
might reasonably start with a page cache of 128 to 512 pages if RAM is
not being used excessively by other applications.
>With Fbss and up to 50 users (connexions), I observed 2 Go ram maximum
usage on 4 Go installed, and fbserver memory usage is about 256 Mo.
There is no other main application on this server.
> ./heLen
>