| Subject | SV: [firebird-support] Firebird classic vs supperclassic |
|---|---|
| Author | Poul Dige |
| Post date | 2011-12-20T14:32:05Z |
Hi Jesus,
We are running the x64 version of FB2.5.0 SC on ubuntu 11.04 server for almost a year and we are indeed happy. So far we didn't experience anything else but e.g. much faster connection time, compared to 2.1 CS.
It is correct that you take down the whole server if you really crash one thread, but if you already manage to run your application with SS then I would say: go for it (if you can benefit from multi core support).
Best regards
Poul Dige
Fra: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com [mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Jesus Garcia
Sendt: 17. december 2011 22:36
Til: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [firebird-support] Firebird classic vs supperclassic
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]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We are running the x64 version of FB2.5.0 SC on ubuntu 11.04 server for almost a year and we are indeed happy. So far we didn't experience anything else but e.g. much faster connection time, compared to 2.1 CS.
It is correct that you take down the whole server if you really crash one thread, but if you already manage to run your application with SS then I would say: go for it (if you can benefit from multi core support).
Best regards
Poul Dige
Fra: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com [mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Jesus Garcia
Sendt: 17. december 2011 22:36
Til: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [firebird-support] Firebird classic vs supperclassic
>Hello Thomas, i have read it. I know people still prefer Classic, but i
> 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
>
>
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]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]