Interbase 6 Open Edition 6.0.2.0
Hello, I've been a user of Borland InterBase Open Edition 6.0.1 for a while, and it has been good. However, my InterBase has been thru extremely heavy work loads recently, and I have noticed that sometimes it takes up to 60 seconds to show query results to my clients.
The following tables list each supported version of DataStax Enterprise (DSE) and itscorresponding Apache Cassandra™, CQL, and SSTable versions:End of Life — Patches/bug fixes not available.End of Service Life — Patches/bug fixes and support not available. Documentation updates are not provided. Current versions DataStax Enterprise (DSE)Apache CassandraCQLSSTable formatSSTable version6.7Compatible with 3.11 + production-certified enhancements3.4.5 + enhancementsbtia6.0Compatible with 3.11 + production-certified enhancements3.4 + enhancementsbtia5.1Compatible with 3.11 + production-certified enhancements3.4 + enhancementsbigmTable 2. End of Service Life (EOSL) versions DataStax Enterprise (version and date)Apache CassandraCQLSSTable formatSSTable version5.0 (2018-12-05)Compatible with 3.0 + production-certified enhancements3.3bigm4.8 (2018-10-16)2.1 + enhancements3.1bigk4.7 (2017-10-18)2.13.1bigk4.6 (2016-12-28)2.03.1bigj4.5 (2016-06-29)2.03.14.0 (2016-02-25)2.03.13.2 (2015-11-13)1.23.03.1 (2015-07-08)1.23.03.0 (2015-02-25)1.12.2 (2014-10-04)1.12.1 (2014-07-23)1.0note Verify compatibility with the current DSE version when using nodetoolupgradesstables, sstableloader, and sstableupgrade. See the SSTable compatibility andupgrade version table.
DSE OpsCenter compatibility with DSE. The DataStax Bulk Loader (dsbulk) command line tool runs on Linux and Windows environments.It is compatible with:. DDAC.
DSE 6.7. DSE 6.0. DSE 5.1DataStax support for Apache Cassandra. DataStax Distribution of Apache Cassandra (DDAC) is based on the DataStax enhancedversion of Apache Cassandra™ 3.11 included in DataStax Enterprise (DSE)5.1. Patch releases for DDAC and maintenance longevity correspond to the DSE 5.1 patchesand maintenance schedule.
DDAC supports the and. DataStax does not support open-source Cassandra. You can download the latest open-sourceversions from. As of June 2019, DataStax produced documentation for Cassandra 2.1, Cassandra 3.0, CQL3.3, and CQL 3.1 are no longer supported or maintained. Content for the following DataStaxproduced Cassandra documents were last updated in early January 2017:. Cassandra 3.x Linux and Windows. Cassandra 3.0 Windows.
Cassandra 2.2 Linux and Windows. Cassandra 2.0. Cassandra 1.2. For open-source Cassandra, see the.Documentation maintenance policyAfter a DataStax Enterprise version reaches end-of-service-life, other correspondingproducts are not supported and documentation updates are no longer provided. © DataStax, Inc. All rights reserved.
Updated: 2019-10-14 Build time: 2019-10-14 09:57:29.336DataStax, Titan, and TitanDB are registered trademark of DataStax, Inc. And itssubsidiaries in the United States and/or other countries.Apache, Apache Cassandra, Cassandra, Apache Tomcat, Tomcat, Apache Lucene,Apache Solr, Apache Hadoop, Hadoop, Apache Spark, Spark, Apache TinkerPop, TinkerPop,Apache Kafka and Kafka are either registered trademarks or trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation or its subsidiaries in Canada, the United States and/orother countries.
I don't believe that is correct. The server license is several hundreddollars (and allows, I think, up to four connections), and about $150for each client license, with 10-packs available at a discount. Don'tquote me on the exact numbers, but it's very affordable, especially ifyou need the dozen or so major features that FB doesn't have. Don't getme wrong, I love the new Firebird 2.0 release, but it still doesn't havesome of IB's best features, and it takes the FB team a couple years tofinish each round of new features.Check out page 15 of this link:IMHO, there are only 2 databases in the world: IB/FB and Oracle. IB/FBwork extremely well for about 98% of the projects most people areinvolved in, and for the others, there's Oracle.
SQL Server just barelyreleased their first version (2005) that supports row versioning, and itis turned off by default. If you read articles about the feature, thereare warnings to only turn it on if you really need it. IB/FB and Oraclehave had row versioning perfected for ages.My $0.02.LorenWillR28.11.06 6:26.
Loren Szendre wrote: Jack Mason wrote: If I understand the licensing fees, with a three computer systemit would cost us $3,200 to license InterBase 7+. Is this about right? If so, as a small business, it prices us right out of the marketplace. I don't believe that is correct. Thanks, Loren.
I had seen the white paper comparing IB and SQL Server.What I was looking for was FireBird vs. I don't believe we usemany features of IB, just the basics. We needed a server based databaseto replace an old Borland database system and IB with IB Objects got usthere the easiest. There is a bug in IB Objects in the RECORDCOUNTprocedure (a wayward pointer, possibly) that gives us grief and we haveto restart our applications at least weekly, but that is a separate issue.We did not know enough, or care enough, about databases to be dangerousand just needed to be able to convert from Paradox as easily and quicklyas possible.The only reason we are even actively interested in changing from IB6.0.2.0 is that we are beginning to use the new dual core processors andour IB doesn't work on those without using the IBAffinity program. Wehave been using the same version for about 5 years or more and it couldbe time for us to upgrade.Is there a comparison between IB and Firebird somewhere?ThanksLoren Szendre28.11.06 21:57. Jack,As you know, IB and FB have parted ways.
With the release of FB 2.0, itwould be unwise to use IBX to access FB 2.0, even though I imagine thereare folks out there trying it.I don't know about any papers comparing the two, but I can tell you thatif you need SMP support, Embedded User Authentication, Advanced Loggingcapabilities (as well as some other features to enable using IB inlarger Enterprise environments) - then you should use IB over FB.FB 2.0 is like the old open source version of IB on steroids - lots ofbugfixes, gobs of new features and more built-in functions, and lots oflimitations removed. But it still can't handle SMP and doesn't have EUA,and a few other features.Bottom line - both have features and capabilities that the otherdoesn't have.
I can't tell you which is better for you. You have todecide where your pricepoint is, and what features are important to yourbusiness. I can tell you that long-term the cost difference will beinconsequential. So choose the one that fits your needs the best - inthe long run that will be the least expensive choice.LorenThomas Steinmaurer28.11.06 23:18. Loren, As you know, IB and FB have parted ways. With the release of FB 2.0, it would be unwise to use IBX to access FB 2.0, even though I imagine there are folks out there trying it.
I don't know about any papers comparing the two, but I can tell you that if you need SMP support, Embedded User Authentication, Advanced Logging capabilities (as well as some other features to enable using IB in larger Enterprise environments) - then you should use IB over FB. FB 2.0 is like the old open source version of IB on steroids - lots of bugfixes, gobs of new features and more built-in functions, and lots of limitations removed. But it still can't handle SMP and doesn't have EUA, and a few other features.The Classic architecture handles SMP just fine. Embedded UserAuthentication isn't available. I don't want to get into detailswhat's new in Firebird 2.0, because the Release notes document is 150pages long.;-) Bottom line - both have features and capabilities that the other doesn't have.Right. It's a matter of personal requirements.
One needs to write themdown, evaluate, etc.-Best Regards,Thomas SteinmaurerLogManager Series - Logging/Auditing Suites supportingInterBase, Firebird, Advantage Database, MS SQL Server andNexusDB V2Upscene ProductionsCraig Stuntz TeamB29.11.06 11:15. Thomas Steinmaurer wrote: The Classic architecture handles SMP just fine.Not according to Jim Starkey, the original architect of InterBase -'I understand you you're saying, particularly since I designed it that way. Butclassic doesn't scale well for update intensive applications, doesn't meetcontemporary standards for robustness, and has unenforceable security. If youare looking for an existence proof, yes, it does run on SMP, but not in a mannerattractive to new users.' -Jeff Overcash (TeamB)(Please do not email me directly unless asked. Thank You)A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butchera hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, builda wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, actalone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialization is forinsects. (RAH)Thomas Steinmaurer30.11.06 6:43. The Classic architecture handles SMP just fine. Not according to Jim Starkey, the original architect of InterBase - 'I understand you you're saying, particularly since I designed it that way.
But classic doesn't scale well for update intensive applications, doesn't meet contemporary standards for robustness, and has unenforceable security. If you are looking for an existence proof, yes, it does run on SMP, but not in a manner attractive to new users.' You guys are reading the Firebird lists? Excellent!;-)Care to keep IBX compatible with Firebird? You would do a 'few' Delphiusers with IBX legacy apps a favour, I guess.-Best Regards,Thomas SteinmaurerLogManager Series - Logging/Auditing Suites supportingInterBase, Firebird, Advantage Database, MS SQL Server andNexusDB V2Upscene ProductionsBill Todd30.11.06 7:04. Bill, Thomas Steinmaurer wrote:Care to keep IBX compatible with Firebird?
IBX is a CodeGear product. How does supporting Firebird benefit CodeGear? The answer is that there is no benefit that justifies the effort. CodeGear needs to invest its resources in other areas.Don't get me wrong, I don't really understand this position. I stillthink that a tidy support for Firebird in CodeGears IDE product line.will.
benefit CodeGears IDE, especially the BDS/Delphi business.BDS is bundled with MSSQL, for instance. Borland (when the CodeGearannouncement hasn't been published at that time) sponsored the this yearFirebird conference, for instance. So, IMHO, re-thinking the usualposition, especially from TeamB members, might make sense.I don't want to start another 'lets get ready to rumble' discussion. Forthose who have been at the Firebird conference, have seen, that there.might.
be a movement.-Best Regards,Thomas SteinmaurerLogManager Series - Logging/Auditing Suites supportingInterBase, Firebird, Advantage Database, MS SQL Server andNexusDB V2Upscene ProductionsBill Todd30.11.06 8:42. Thomas Steinmaurer wrote: BDS is bundled with MSSQLHow many users do SQL Server, Oracle, DB2 and MySQL each have?
How many users does Firebird have? How many complaints has Borland received in the past about problems with their drivers for the big players in the database world and about lack of timely updates to the drivers? CodeGear needs to fix the complaints they have received about support for the dirvers for the most popular databases before they even think about adding support for any others. If CodeGear could produce a set of drivers for SQL Server, Oracle, DB2 and MySQL that are so good they would put the third-party driver vendors out of business, and if the price of doing so is that CodeGear could not provide drivers for any other database, it would be the the best deal they have ever made in my personal opinion. In terms of relative benefit to CodeGear providing drivers for Firebird ranks with providing drivers for Pervasive and PostgreSQL.CodeGear has a new team working on their database connectivity architecture but the significant thing is the quality of the engineers on the new team. These are very senior engineers with a lot of very impressive database experience.
For that reason I am very optimistic that CodeGear's database connectivity support will improve dramatically. If that happens, the day may come when it makes economic sense to provide drivers for some of the less commonly used databases but it does not make sense now, at least not to me.I agree. Let's not start a debate.-Bill Todd (TeamB)Jeff Overcash (TeamB)30.11.06 18:24. Thomas Steinmaurer wrote: The Classic architecture handles SMP just fine. Not according to Jim Starkey, the original architect of InterBase - 'I understand you you're saying, particularly since I designed it that way.
But classic doesn't scale well for update intensive applications, doesn't meet contemporary standards for robustness, and has unenforceable security. If you are looking for an existence proof, yes, it does run on SMP, but not in a manner attractive to new users.' You guys are reading the Firebird lists? Excellent!;-)I don't (actually I never have read a single message on any of the FB forums,but that doesn't stop people from sending me things they think are interesting),someone forwarded that to me. Care to keep IBX compatible with Firebird? You would do a 'few' Delphi users with IBX legacy apps a favour, I guess.All Firebird had to do was stay backwards compatible with IB 6.0, they didn't.I have explained in the past why I don't have time to work on both IBX and anFBX. Nothing has changed on that front, nor will it.-Jeff Overcash (TeamB)(Please do not email me directly unless asked.
Thank You)A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butchera hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, builda wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, actalone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is forinsects. (RAH)Jack Mason04.12.06 17:58. Sorry, I did not mean to start a debate. Our application is very small.We have retail book stores that will most likely never need more than6 computers used as point-of-sale units.
Interbase 6 Open Edition 6.0.2.0 2016
Connecting between stores isdone over DSL for small, single-customer inquiries on a very limitedbasis. Scalability beyond this level is not significantly likely forthese bookstore applications.Each computer is a single user from our standpoint, but may be as manyas three concurrently running programs, each with multiple databases andmultiple streams to the same table(s) open to the server. If we countonly the open databases (we use Delphi), each user would have only about6 connections open at any point in time. If we counted tables &queries, each user could have from 60 to 80 open at any given point.Coming from a Paradox background, we did not expand much in ourcapabilities when we went to IB, as straight a conversion as we coulddo. That is why we used IBO. We just needed a simple minded databasesystem.
IB was really overkill, but it came with Delphi and thenBorland made the open source version available.Using the newer dual-core, hyper-threaded processor boards appearsinevitable since we just buy computers off the shelf and we have beengetting some of these when we purchase systems in the $400 range. Ifthese are the same as SMP systems, then that needs to guide ourdirection also. This is only reason we are even looking at changing fromIB 6.0.2.0 at this point.With three stores (more in the future), if it is only about $700 perstore for IB, that is not a big deal unless we have to keep upgradingand paying again.Craig Stuntz TeamB05.12.06 3:57. Jack Mason wrote: Using the newer dual-core, hyper-threaded processor boards appears inevitable since we just buy computers off the shelf and we have been getting some of these when we purchase systems in the $400 range.
If these are the same as SMP systems, then that needs to guide our direction also.Dual core and SMP are different from an IB licensing point of view.The dual-core license is cheaper than a server license + an additionalpoint of view (i.e., what you would need to use two processors on anon-dual-core, SMP system).Also, consider that you don't have to license both processors unlessyour app will be processor-bound. If the work you get the IB server todo is disk-I/O bound or if only one user ever taxes the server at atime, then there's no point in licensing both processors. If, on theother hand, it's CPU-bound and multiple users are hitting the serverpretty hard at the same time, then a second CPU license is probably thecheapest speed improvement available.-Craig Stuntz TeamB Vertex Systems Corp. Columbus, OHDelphi/InterBase Weblog:Useful articles about InterBase development:Pavel Cisar06.12.06 8:57. Craig Stuntz TeamB wrote: Along with all of the limitations classic has always had - no shared cache, dicey security, etc. Borland stopped developing classic for a reason, and it looks to me like Firebird is going the same path for the most part.1) In fact, no shared cache can give you way better performance incertain setups with large number of concurrent users. There are somehard numbers to prove that.2) Dicey security?
You should be prepared to support that claim withsome evidence. Classic is AFAIK secure as Super Server.3) While Borland stopped to develop Classic for a reason, Firebirdproject had a reason to develop it too, and even bring it to the Windowsplatform. Classic has certain characteristics that make it more suitablethan SS for certain tasks. Borland lost several big users/customersthanks to their discontinuation of Classic.4) Even with new Vulcan/Firebird 3.0 architecture, Firebird will notdiscontinue to support 'classic'.
In fact, new architecture is a hybridone, that allows to run FB in embedded, Super Server, Classic or 'both'mode (multiple cooperating multithreaded servers).best regardsPavel CisarIBPhoenixCraig Stuntz TeamB06.12.06 8:38. Shared caches are simply not possible with Classic. Saying that thereare a few cases where you might not want to use one doesn't change thisfact. And let's not pretend that they aren't better in generalapplications; that implication is beneath comment.
Whereas withSuperServer the IB team could rather easily make the cacheper-connection instead of per-DB if customers were screaming for it. Idon't seem to see any QC requests for this, though.The security issues you don't seem to remember are explained(accurately, if a bit indirectly) on your own web site:The important bit is this: 'in some cases running under the unixuid/gid of the requesting client process.'
The issue is not with the DBserver internally (I agree there's no special security concerns insidethe server process) but rather with the inability to lock down fileaccess security at the OS level and restrict access to the servermachine.Which IB 7/2007 feature should Borland have dropped in order to spendtime nursing Classic along? None of them, in my book.-Craig Stuntz TeamB Vertex Systems Corp. Columbus, OHDelphi/InterBase Weblog:Want to help make Delphi and InterBase better? Use QC!- Vote for important issuesPaul06.12.06 13:01.
Paul wrote: IMHO, the reason why Delphi has failed to make it to the big time isDon't ya just love 20/20 hindsight. Anybody agree BTW?Paul. Paul.-plinehan at yahoo dot comXP Pro, SP 2,Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)Interbase 6.0.1.0;When asking database related questions, please give other posterssome clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= 'it didn't work!' ).Thanks.Furthermore, as a courtesy to those who spendtime analysing and attempting to help, pleasedo not top post.Paul06.12.06 12:59.
'Bill Todd' wrote: How many users do SQL Server, Oracle, DB2 and MySQL each have?Loads. Not the point though. I think Loren Szendre put it best when hesaid that IB was good enough for 90% of apps - if you want higherlevels of whatever, go for Oracle (sorry if I've misquoted).
In terms of relative benefit to CodeGear providing drivers for Firebird ranks with providing drivers for Pervasive and PostgreSQL.IMHO, the reason why Delphi has failed to make it to the big time isbecause of the BDE. Borland should have supported native componentsets for Oracle, DB2, MSSQL, Sybase, Informix and Interbase (andpossibly Ingres and SAP) from the get go.Paul.-plinehan at yahoo dot comXP Pro, SP 2,Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)Interbase 6.0.1.0;When asking database related questions, please give other posterssome clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= 'it didn't work!'
).Thanks.Furthermore, as a courtesy to those who spendtime analysing and attempting to help, pleasedo not top post.Bill Todd06.12.06 13:29. Paul wrote: 'Bill Todd' wrote: How many users do SQL Server, Oracle, DB2 and MySQL each have?
Loads. Not the point though.
I think Loren Szendre put it best when he said that IB was good enough for 90% of apps - if you want higher levels of whatever, go for Oracle (sorry if I've misquoted).I am completely lost here. The subject of InterBase vs. Other databaseswas never mentioned. The question was whether CodeGear would or shouldmake the IBX components compatible with Firebird or provide a Firebirddriver for dbExpress. My point was that there are many many many moreDelphi developers working with Oracle, DB2, SQL Server and MySQL thanthere are Delphi developers who are working with Firebird.
Therefore,it is much more important to satisify the much larger group ofdevelopers than it is to satisfy the small group using Firebird. Ifthey get to the point where they can satisfy both then great but ifthey have to make a choice then they should satisfy the group ofdevelopers that generates the most revenue. In terms of relative benefit to CodeGear providing drivers for Firebird ranks with providing drivers for Pervasive and PostgreSQL. IMHO, the reason why Delphi has failed to make it to the big time is because of the BDE. Borland should have supported native componentI strongly disagree but I am not going to spend time debating thepoint.
There are two philosophies you can follow for databaseconnectivity. We won't have any processor bound applications that we know of. Wecurrently can't get IB to run well as a server on a dual-core systemanyway. The last time I saw the term SMP, about 12 years ago, it wasused for symmetric multiprocessor. Is this still what it references?If so, I am missing the distinction between dual core and SMP since itused to be that dual core was just a special case of multiple processorsaccessing the same memory. We have had SMP around since the early1960's, the only difference being today we can cram multiple processorson a single chip as opposed to on a single board or in a single backplane.The systems we have will all be single user, with the processors(hopefully not the operating system) determining how many processorsneed to be invoked and when. So, hopefully, we would only have tolicense each system.
However, we don't want to have to relicense themeach year as upgrades come out.What I don't understand is how Intel/AMD can build a PC board that hasmore processors, but runs an application 20 to 30 times slower than asingle processor board. Multiprocessors used to have a counter thatdetected instruction aborts and if a threshold was exceeded, that threadquit being multiprocessed. Microsoft has never written adecent scheduler for Windows products, why should Intel have to learnhow to correctly build processors.Thanks for your reponses.Bill Todd06.12.06 19:34. Jack Mason wrote: If so, I am missing the distinction between dual core and SMP since it used to be that dual core was just a special case of multiple processors accessing the same memory.
We have had SMP around sinceIt still is. The difference in licensing cost is arbitrary.
the early 1960's, the only difference being today we can cram multiple processors on a single chip as opposed to on a single board or in a single backplane. The systems we have will all be single user, with the processors (hopefully not the operating system) determining how many processors need to be invoked and when. So, hopefully, we would only have toThe processors cannot decide how many processors to use because theprocessors have no knowlege of instruction order and the instructionswithin a thread must be executed sequentially. license each system. However, we don't want to have to relicense them each year as upgrades come out.Database servers typically ship a new major version every three yearsand you only need to relicense on a major version change.
What I don't understand is how Intel/AMD can build a PC board that has more processors, but runs an application 20 to 30 times slower than a single processor board. Multiprocessors used to have a counter that detected instruction aborts and if a threshold was exceeded, that thread quit being multiprocessed.
Oh, well. Microsoft has never written a decent scheduler for Windows products, why should Intel have to learn how to correctly build processors.-Bill Todd (TeamB)Craig Stuntz TeamB07.12.06 4:39. Jack Mason wrote: The last time I saw the term SMP, about 12 years ago, it was used for symmetric multiprocessor. Is this still what it references?Yes.
If so, I am missing the distinction between dual core and SMP since it used to be that dual core was just a special case of multiple processors accessing the same memory.Dual core means two physical CPUs on the same die/casing. In both dualcore and non-dual core (separate cases for the individual CPUs)applications the processors use the same memory. What I don't understand is how Intel/AMD can build a PC board that has more processors, but runs an application 20 to 30 times slower than a single processor board.It varies with applications, of course, but it is not my experiencethat this happens. Some old software, such as InterBase 6.x, does runmore slowly on a SMP system, but you can work around this by affiningit to a single processor and then there's no big penalty.
I have seencases of cache poisining by low-priority processes on hyper-threadedsystems. But for the most part I find that SMP gives a big speed boost,especially with concurrent or multi-threaded processes.In particular, people who have more than one heavy user doing aCPU-intensive task concurrently in IB 7+ will almost certainly see anadvangage from SMP. Oh, well. Microsoft has never written a decent scheduler for Windows products, why should Intel have to learn how to correctly build processors.I beg to differ.
The scheduler in Windows 2003 was significantlyimproved from its predecessors and actually works pretty well.-Craig Stuntz TeamB Vertex Systems Corp. Columbus, OHDelphi/InterBase Weblog:IB 6 versions prior to 6.0.1.6 are pre-release and may corruptyour DBs! Open Edition users, get 6.0.1.6 fromJack Mason11.12.06 17:23.
Craig Stuntz TeamB wrote: Shared caches are simply not possible with Classic.That simply wrong statement. Tell that to PostgreSQL folks. Ever heardabout shared memory between processes? It's not done in Firebird yet,but it doesn't mean it couldn't be done. Look up some old threads aboutthe topic in Firebird-Architect. Saying that there are a few cases where you might not want to use one doesn't change this fact.This shared/no shared cache issue goes down to cache at file system. Infact, you always have shared cache at file system nowadays.
Operationsat file system cache can collide with large shared cache use pattern ina way that will significantly reduce the overall performance, and on theother side small not shared cache can give you performance boost. And let's not pretend that they aren't better in general applications; that implication is beneath comment. Whereas with SuperServer the IB team could rather easily make the cache per-connection instead of per-DB if customers were screaming for it. I don't seem to see any QC requests for this, though.Yes, that's done as an option in Vulcan/Firebird 3.0.
The security issues you don't seem to remember are explained (accurately, if a bit indirectly) on your own web site:This article is dated way back to 2001. A lot changed in Firebirdsecurity front since that.
You have to have group access with classic inlocal settings (which means true embedded mode), but that requirement isnatural for any such system. With access over TCP/IP, Classic is assecure as Super Server, if not more.best regardsPavel CisarIBPhoenixCraig Stuntz TeamB13.12.06 7:14. Pavel Cisar wrote: Craig Stuntz TeamB wrote: Shared caches are simply not possible with Classic. That simply wrong statement.I didn't say 'not possible /to do well/' because I thought that wasobvious.
Shared memory between processes never ends well inthe real world. This article is dated way back to 2001.
A lot changed in Firebird security front since that. You have to have group access with classic in local settings (which means true embedded mode), but that requirement is natural for any such system.For in-process servers of course you'd need group access. But forout-of-process, local connections it's still a security hole, and a badone at that.With that said, however, I'm beginning to think that Windows Vistawill kill local access via memory mapped files.-Craig Stuntz TeamB Vertex Systems Corp. Columbus, OHDelphi/InterBase Weblog:IB 6 versions prior to 6.0.1.6 are pre-release and may corruptyour DBs! Open Edition users, get 6.0.1.6 fromRod25.12.06 4:54.
