> I came across this document:
>
> http://www.firebirdsql.org/file/documentation/papers_presentations/html
> /paper-fbent-impacting.html
>
> It seems to be talking about a much older version of FB than is available now.
> Even back in the days of Win 2003 Server, I've built systems that had probably
> 300 concurrent users without performance degradation.
>
> I intend to connect about 2000 concurrent users. Is the subject FB version
> capable on say, 16GB ram, assuming I have a very simple and efficient table
> structure, queries, plans, FKs and PKs?
>
> If FB cannot handle this number of concurrent connections, what DB should I
> move to? MS SQL or Oracle? or something else?

We are running a database (built on 2.1.x classic) that easily runs more than 1000. I think to recall almost 2000 connections at one time. The problem might be if all the connections are very active that the interprocess communication to the lock manager might slow it down a bit. But I don't think that there are any issues per se in running 2000 connections.

If you use 2.5.2 you can run the super classic version, which will be somewhat more agile on the locking afaiu. But with the downside that if one thread crashes it will take everyone else with it down. But it might be worth a try :)

Best regards
Poul Dige