On 06.11.2014 20:22, af_12...@yahoo.com [firebird-support] wrote: > > > Hi > > i am "new" to databases and i am "going to choose" Firebird. > > Supposing that i will have to interact with some MS server where are > some already installed software, mail server and other softwares i were > starting to ask if is there any limit about the number of concurrent > Clients that could access simultaneously to the FB database. > > > Some peoples are suggesting me to do not install FB server on a domain > controller becouse i will risk a serious perfomance issue. > > Some Others are telling that is only a question of server,cache,page > size ,etc > > > i am getting confused becouse > > i've got some post of the 2012 talking about FB that solved this issue > but other that tell's that also Microsoft suggest to do not install > MSSQL on an acvite domain > > > some more tells to do not install "ON" , other to do not install "FB AS > acting ALSO like a domain controller" (does FB could act in that way?) > > all this becouse of a security functionality that Microsoft server apply > on an DC > > > my main doubt is : > > when i will have only 1 server on an already working network > infrastructure of a customer and i will need to install my "small > application" that will use FB in a c/s environment without having > possibility to buy/install a second server , will i risk this > PERFORMANCE ISSUE becouse of an incomatibility or i could solve it just > "changing the configuration" of the MS server+ FB_db ? > > hej,
to be honest - setting up an internal test system you may install whatever you want onto a single server - but keep in mind that it's internal test that must never go live into production! As rule of thumb/best praxis: Leave AD-Servers alone! Why? You don't want messed up AD-Servers. > > this are some posts > > (FB) > http://dyemanov.blogspot.it/2012/03/firebird-vs-windows-file-system-caching.html > > (MS) http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2032911 > > (postgreSQL) http://help.theatremanager.com/book/export/html/1606 > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
