At 08:24 PM 25/01/2008, mohamed.banaouas wrote:

>> I also note that you don't bother to read the detailed replies that
>some people have taken the time and trouble to provide for you, e.g.,
>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.

"Disturb" is not the issue. Both Adam and Sean gave you informative replies, which you ignored.

>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.

Could you please go to the very first page of the release notes that you are looking at, and report the document release number and date, please? Classic was experimental at the beginning (Fb 1.5.0), but that was almost 4 years ago. So let's see whether we need to correct this warning for some or all of the notes for the five sub-releases since then...

>> And 20480 really is a ridiculous setting for the page cache in
>Superserver 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?

Yes.

>usually pages in cache are accessed quicker than on disk.

That's true - but only if the cached page that is sought is in RAM. If it is in the memory cache then the disk has to be visited anyway. So you should never set the page cache so high that it is at risk of being paged out to disk cache.

>>For Classic, the default page cache size is 75 pages, assuming a page
>size 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.

With SS on 32-bit Windows, 2 Gb is the MAXIMUM TOTAL RAM that any single application is allowed to use, as I think Adam explained. Each connection to SS uses threads of that single Superserver process.

He also explained that Classic can enable you to make better use of spare resources, because *each* connection runs a separate fb_inet_server process, i.e., each connection has up to 2 GB of RAM available to it. Of course, with 50 connections, each with its own private page cache, most instances of fb_inet_server would not have close to 2 GB available to them...

And, on SMP machines, because the processes are separate, the multiple processor capacity is likely to be used, as Windows will assign each process to the CPU that has the most available capacity.

Neither of these benefits is available to SS.

./heLen