> Also, do keep
> in mind that if the server is multi-core and/or multi-cpu, install
> FB classic(and that is what our customer is running).

BTW, have you made any tests on the SuperServer vs Classic performance?

I've done a small test:
4-core CPU, 10K hard drive, Windows XP, FB 2.1
300Mb database, 1.5M records table, 3 connections and each is executing a
query.
First 2 queries - "endless" selects with subselects/full table scans - to
put some load.
3rd query - indexed select with several joins - to measure the execute time.

Results:
Super Server - Execute time = 55s 593ms

Classic Server - Execute time = 1m 7s 360ms

Judging from this page -
http://www.sinatica.com/blog/en/index.php/articles/firebird-superserver-classicserver-or-superclassic -
Classic suffers from the dedicated cache.

It would be interesting to hear live field experience - may be with the real
work and greater number of users (30-100-300) SuperServer would show better
performance?

> Daniel Rail

Kirill.