Re: [Firebird-net-provider] Firebird scalability under heavy load

[pablosantosluac <pab...@te...>]

Hi,


Well, needless to say I'm pretty happy with Firebird, which I believe is a 
great db. In fact up to 10 concurrent users (I'm talking about our system, 
it will obviously vary with others) Fb is better than SQL Server.


Well, I tried both with SQLServer 2005 (a developers' release)  and Express 
and they both give me the same numbers! I tried both with the same 
hardware/sw configuration and the same dedicated client machines (about 40 
boxes running plastic clients).


pablo



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Miller" <ste...@si...>
To: "For users and developers of the Firebird .NET providers" 
<fir...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Firebird-net-provider] Firebird scalability under heavy load


> Hi Pablo,
>
> Thank you for publishing your numbers.
>
>> On the other hand, in my test, the embedded server is slower than the
>> "external" one: 444s to complete the embedded vs 291 the "external".
>> Just to give some data to compare: using SQL Server the same test
>> (exactly the same code base) requires 198 seconds. The interesting
>> thing is that the test with only one client (instead of 20) is faster
>> with the Fb backend than the SQL Server one. Maybe it is not an issue
>> with the provider but firebird itself, although the time taken to
>> marshal and unmarshal looks like a possible "culprit".
>
>
> Were you using SQL Server 2005? Which version were you using? I'm
> interested in comparing Firebird against SQL Server Express.
>
> Steve
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Firebird-net-provider mailing list
> Fir...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-net-provider