[THIN] Re: bbwc

From: richard van beers <richard.van.beers@xxxxxxxxx>
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:58:33 +0100

Why would a battery WC perform better then an A/C powered WC? Assuming
there *is* A/C..
I always assumed battery WC is there to prevent transactional DBes
from having corrupt records due to a sudden power failure. So it will
not mark a transaction done, while in fact it is stuck in cache. Am I
wrong?

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:48:03 -0500, Luchette, Jon
<JLuchette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
> Hey, 
>   
> With HP hardware, to buy the BBWC (battery backed write cache) module is
> usually a good idea for a Citrix/TS Server to see the best performance on a
> heavily loaded box I mean.  >
********************************************************
This Weeks Sponsor: RTO Software TScale
TScale provides a cost-effective way to improve performance, capacity and 
stability for thin-client servers like Citrix MetaFrame or Microsoft Terminal 
Services running Windows NT, 2000 or 2003.
http://www.rtosoft.com/enter.asp?id=296
********************************************************** 
Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
http://thin.net/links.cfm
ThinWiki community - Excellent SBC Search Capabilities!
http://www.thinwiki.com
***********************************************************
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or 
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://thin.net/citrixlist.cfm

References:

[THIN] bbwc
From: Luchette, Jon

[THIN] Re: bbwc

Other related posts: