English > Support

Network - connect to server - 401 Error - (Updated)

<< < (3/3)

rick.ca:

--- Quote ---In a scenario like this you should consider your use case.
--- End quote ---

I don't understand. Even if it's possible, why would he be accessing any database with two servers? And if using one server, why would a locking mechanism matter?

goddert:
A,B,C,D,E = different machines
A = DB Server 1
B = DB Server 2
C = DB
D = Client 1
E = Client 2

D can talk only to A and E can talk only to B. You want to use only one db (C). A and B both can talk to C. This is the case in many production environments of databases. But it doesn't work with NFS/SMB shares because locking isn't safe with the classic server. With one server the locking mechanism matters (if db is not locally attached) as latency on NFS/SMB shares is slow and if you send two concurrent commands it may fail.

Post is old but still valid:
http://forums.devshed.com/firebird-sql-development-61/firebird-and-networkdrives-under-win32t-227963.html

Firebird FAQ page 22
http://firebirdsql.org/pdfmanual/Firebird-2-QuickStart.pdf

I didn't want to scare anyone but to issue a warning if someone is considering a setup like this.

Markk:
Quote from your link "...Seriously, if another Firebird server access the same file (that is, IF you can get it to work), you will experience instant database corruption."

But for the rest of us typical home users - yes some have elaborate home networks but would only be using 1 Firebird Server to share a database or 2
A Typical Home LAN Network use may be...

A = Server DB read write (media PC always on in lounge running Firebird)
B = Client read write - Main PC used to import edit data
C = Client read write - 2nd PC occasional edit data
D = Client read only - kids PC
E = Remote internet access read only - friends or work access

In this instance it would be safe and work as intended

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page