> > 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]
