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