>
> The thing with SC is, when something bad happens in a connection, which
> crashes the server, e.g. due to a bug in the engine or a faulty UDF, all
> connections are affected. This is probably the reason why people still
> prefer Classic over SC. SC might be easier to manage, because you only
> see one process in the task manager and according to some benchmarks, SC
> seems to be a bit faster than Classic.
>
> I guess you know this architecture comparison sheet already?
> http://www.firebirdsql.org/file/fb25_architecture_comparison.pdf
>
> --
> With regards,
> Thomas Steinmaurer
>
>

Hello Thomas, i have read it. I know people still prefer Classic, but i
think that there has been time and effort to develop the Superclassic model
and now people does not trust in like in classic. Also i have read people
that say that superserver is not for production, but i use it in production
servers since 1.0 and now in 2.5, and until know i have not had any
problems and is working for months 24/7 without issues. Now i have one
bigger client and i have to select one of two models. I have readed
comparisons, benchmark but searching no information of community feedback.

What i tried is get people experience in using both architectures and
feedback of their use. The feedback of people is very interesting for the
community.

Regards, Jesus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]