--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Dmitry Kuzmenko <kdv@...> wrote:

>
> Hello, raja_s_patil!
>
> Saturday, October 8, 2011, 9:37:06 AM, you wrote:
>
> r> client wants to stick to FB at Branches for sure. But for centralized
> r> database they have doubt that whether it will sustain the volume of 10
> r> to 15 GB and how it will perform and have given indication that they
>
> 10-15 GB databases now are the most average database size for
> Firebird.
>
> r> 1. Whether FB 2.1 SS / FB 2.5 ?? on 64 bit Linux (Kubuntu) will be
> r> able to handle 15GB database ?
>
> it will be able to handle even 1TB database with ~500 concurrent
> users.
>
> r> 2. What version should be selected FB 2.1, 2.5 and which architecture?
>
> Of course, the newer is better, so, 2.5.1. Architecture - Classic or
> SuperClassic, because only these architectures supports SMP.
> SuperServer does not support SMP, but can be used for ~20 or more
> users, if applications are not mix with OLTP and DSS queries.
>
> r> 3. What precautions should we take like Processor, RAM, Linux FS
> r> selection etc. etc. so that FB will run with maximum efficiency and
> r> stability.
>
> efficiency and stability depends on hardware. Pay attention to disks,
> use raid 10. At most systems hardware is very different, because of
> differen Firebird load, so, it's a bit hard to give exact suggestions.
>
> Since you already have Firebird with 1.5gb databases and ~10-15 users,
> I don't think that you need to look at hardware that, for example, 10
> times faster than current.
> 15 users or 40 users - not a big difference, until you use 1-2 core
> processor and 1 hard disk (which is usually considered as a "desktop
> computer").
>
> BTW, 1TB test, that Alexey mentioned, was intentionally made
> on desktop computer, not server.
>
> --
> Dmitry Kuzmenko, www.ib-aid.com
>

Thanks Dmitry for precise point to point reply,

We had a meeting with Client today. I showed FB tech. specs page to client which was mentioning 980 GB production database and suggested that we will consolidate all the branches Data and run tests on that to see how it performs which was readily accepted by Client. Added to this some confidence inspiring posts I found here. So slowly our confidence is building.

Regarding FB version I read some performance test data on INTERNET which indicates that FB 2.5 is slower compared to 2.1 SS. However you as a active member of FB team is suggesting I will try FB 2.5 for test data and experience the performance. Few years ago another active member Phill Shrimpton suggested me FB and I tested it and till today not only I am with it but extremely satisfied with it. I found it Most reliable and frugal on hardware/Maintenance requirements. Most of sites where even though > 1GB database is there no dedicated DBA is available but both performance and stability is extra ordinary. Long Live Firebird.

Is there any Memory requirement thumb rule depending upon DB size and No of concurrent users ?

Any precautionary measures should I take to have brilliant performance figures to Impress the Client ?

We are going to use a 64 bit Desktop with 8 GB Ram and OS is 64 bit Kubuntu as database server. A XP dektop with 4 GB RAM will be used as Client. Tests will be few frequently used queries run From IBexpert and Timings will be measured on Consolidated Database. These Timings are expected to be reasonable and practically acceptable.

Thanks to all who posted and warm regards

Raja