Hi Anderson
I have 6 customers using Windows Server 2003 (SMP) 2 x 2-core Xeons
running FB 2.1 CS. They are not dedicated database servers, some are
general fileservers as well, and some are also domain controllers, and
2 are also MS Sqlserver hosts.
I also have 2 similar spec systems running Centos at different
customers, as well as a number of dual Processor Pentium 3 systems.
Different versions of Firebird have been used on most of these systems.

Its pleasing to say that reliability on all systems has been
outstanding over the past 4 years. Not just Firebird but the OS and
hardware. 4 of these are in extremely hostile environments and the
only 2 problems encountered have been one instance of a faulty fibre
router which caused dropped packets and caused transaction failure at
one site where the fibre link was between a Firebird server in an
office environment and an MS Sqlserver in a truck-receiving plant.
The other was caused by a faulty on-board network port on an Intel
SDS2 board which was solved by dropping a Broadcomm nic in the box.

I think Windows 2003 is now a very reliable OS and provided its
patched and sitting behind a good firewall I would stick with it
unless you have a very strong personal preference for a Linux variant.
As for the transaction and index problems, you seem to already have
the answer and its not linked to any particular OS.
Regards
Alan

--
Alan J Davies
Aldis



Quoting Anderson Farias <peixedragao@...>:

> Hi all,
>
> Most of my experience with FB have been on Linux servers. Now, I need to
> check on a FB 1.5 Classic server running on a Windows Server 2003 (SMP) box
> for performance and stability issues.
>
> This is an FB DB dedicated server, that deals with about 300+ concurrent
> connections (and going to 400+ soon). One of my first thoughts were to get
> Windows Server out and install Linux since I have the 'feeling' this would
> be a first step on getting more from the machine.
>
> But, before I do that, I'd like to hear from your experience (on using
> Windows Server as FB DB server and, even better, from those who have
> comparisions between Windows and Linux for this matter)
>
> So, is changing from Windows Server to Linux (RHEL 5.0 for instance) an
> important step *or* I'll probably see no difference at all?
>
> If it's important, the machine is a Dell system with 2x 4-core Xeon
> processors, 4Gb of RAM and SAS disks. The DB is about 3Gb only, 8k page size
> and 75 cache pages.
>
> One of the big problems is that some of the C/S apps that use this DB do not
> handle transactions well and db gets stuck with many record versions...
> than, also there are a lot of bad indices (hi MaxDup, like 80% of table
> records) than when garbage collect get to run, the server gets too busy and
> kind stop handling new connections (People are already working on get rid of
> these bad indexes)
>
>
> Thanks for any info,
>
> Regards,
> Anderson Farias
>
>
>