Hi, Robert.

I think Thomas said what I was going to say; I had one caveat.

Our applications use various applications to input data, extract data,
compute and store intermediate values; these are long-lived
connections. The web page supplies intermediate information on
everything else that's going on (short-lived connections).

In our instance, the overhead of PHP (on Apache) actually takes more
resources than anything else. We use Classic, and the resources to
connect, retrieve, disconnect for the web server is massive compared
to the constant connection the other applications have. Our actual
number of pages served is VERY low compared to the 300,000 mentioned
below (a few hundred pages served per day), so we accept the cost to
serve the few pages necessary.

I suggest you try both Classic and Super, and verify resource usage; I
seriously doubt you will find issues with Thomas' recommendations.

Kurt.

> --- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Robert martin wrote:
>
> Thanks Thomas
>
> I don't know a whole lot about web sites but thought a 1000+ hits a
> second was quite large, don't really know. SS Sounds good, esp
> when 3.0 is released (been waiting for this baby). However with
> FB and IB going different ways do you think there might be future
> issues with the native IB drivers in PHP?
>
> I think I tried the PDO driver but it was DOA (i.e. I couldn't even
> connect).
>
> FB is sounding like its the go :)
>
> --
> Rob Martin
> Software Engineer
>
> phone +64 03 377 0495
> fax +64 03 377 0496
> web www.chreos.com
>
> Wild Software Ltd
>
>
>
> Thomas Woinke wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Robert martin <rob@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> 1) Should I even be considering FB for a web site will a v high

hit rate.

> >>
> > I don'n know what you consider a high hit rate, but the site I am
> > running gets about 300000 hits a day.
> > It runs on Firebird 2.0.4 SuperServer and FB handles the load very

well.

> >
> >
> >> 2) I like the concept behind SS but understand that Classic is

better on

> >> multi cpu machines. If I have 1000 simultaneous hits this means 1000
> >> instances of FB under classic? would I be better with SS under this
> >> circumstance?
> >>
> > Since the common scenario would be many connections with short
> > transactions I chose SuperServer and am going fine. On the downside,
> > SuperServer will not make use of multiple CPUs or cores. Classic might
> > be an option for web apps if you are able to use persistent
> > connections or some sort of connection pool to keep the number of FB
> > instances controllable.
> > I would consider SuperServer as the choice for the common

Apache/PHP combo.

> >
> >
> >> 3) What is the best way to connect to FB from PHP? I tried a

number of

> >> methods but they were buggy (I couldn't even connect) and ended

up using

> >> the native IB drivers. I don't like this as a solution. Do I have to
> >> do ODBC? will it be up to large loads?
> >>
> > The native IB extension is fine and the way to go. An alternative
> > might be the Firebird/interbase-PDO-driver, but I can't say anything
> > about it's stability because I went with the interbase extension and
> > never looked back since.
> >
> > Hope that helps,
> >
> > /thomas
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Visit http://www.firebirdsql.org and click the Resources item
> > on the main (top) menu. Try Knowledgebase and FAQ links !
> >
> > Also search the knowledgebases at http://www.ibphoenix.com
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>