Quite honestly if you have a user base of 3 to 5 clients then it is unlikely that you will have major performance issues anyway. Except if they move large amounts of data in the database. With all due respect, my feeling is that you, being new to databases (that is what I understand you said) , will have bigger performance issues as a result of suboptimal database design, app design & queries not optimised. I think the server is the least of your worries at this stage.



From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com [mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 07 November 2014 01:43 PM
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Odp: [firebird-support] FB server installation a nd concurrent users limits on Windows Server






Hi Mark

thank you very much! your answer is very detailed !!!!



so :

>Based on your link below, you are confusing the specific problems of
>running on an active directory server with a problem with the windows
>>filesystem cache on 64 bit windows. An issue that has been addressed in

Firebird 2.5.2.

that problem is about Firebird , and with that newer versions from 2.5.x to 3 is solved?!

but the "solution" was made just by modifing the code of FB

or becouse it's needed a specific configuration?

>I have no idea what you mean with this sentence. I think you misread the
>sentence "DO NOT set up the postgres database server to also act as
>ACTIVE DIRECTORY or as a DOMAIN CONTROLLER." in your third link. It
>means don't run active directory on the same server as postgresql. The
>same advice applies to firebird or any other database server.

ok

>If you have no other choice,
>then at least make sure you are running on a different *physical* disk
>then the datastore of active directory (although that is still no
>guarantee for good performance).

yes that would be my case , my small customers could not make that effort to have 2 servers

we are speaking of lan of 3/5 customers.



anyway, using a different physical you know that the performance will be the "standard ones" ?



phisical disk cold be also a "partition" from the same HDD ?












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