SuperClassic maybe?
At 08:28 a.m. 24/08/2013, Leyne, Sean wrote:
Don't know/remember myself, have never run that version of the engine.
But the same cache limits apply to SC as to Classic, i.e., SC threads don't
share cache.
Helen Borrie, Support Consultant, IBPhoenix (Pacific)
Author of
Hi Sean.
SuperClassic maybe?
Hugo
Em 22/08/2013 18:03, Leyne, Sean escreveu:
I am using SuperServer.
No, you are not!
If you are seeing FB_inet_server.exe in your Task Manager -- that is
the Classic server. SuperServer process name is FBServer.exe.
Sean
--
Atenciosamente,
SuperClassic maybe?
Don't know/remember myself, have never run that version of the engine.
Sean
Hi.
I am using SuperServer.
Em 22/08/2013 17:56, Leyne, Sean escreveu:
Hugo,
Is it a good idea setting DefaultDbCachePages to high value like 15000
on a DB with page size 16k?
No.
With Classic you want to actually use a cache of 150-300 pages to
reduce lock manager contention.
Hi all,
When database file placed on RAM, should I decrease or increase the value of
DefaultDbCachePages?
Does it has effects on performance, since database already placed on RAM?
Thanks and regards,
Anto
I'm trying to get more performance out of my Firebird server. A way to do that
is to increase amount of RAM Firebird will use. I'm looking for a reliable
method to do that.
I started by increasing the DefaultDbCachePages value in firebird.conf to 8192
in Super-Server installations and to 1024
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:32 PM, ramix001 ramix...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm trying to get more performance out of my Firebird server. A way to do
that is to increase amount of RAM Firebird will use. I'm looking for a
reliable method to do that.
You've made a bit of a leap in your logic. Giving
