That may be, but there are (potential) problems on multi-processor
machines using SuperServer. So if you use Firebird on a multicore, set
the CpuAffinityMask to lock SuperServer to one processor, or use Classic.

See http://www.firebirdsql.org/manual/ufb-about-arch.html

Mark

Kirill Nesterenko wrote:

>> 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.

--
Mark Rotteveel