Thankyou for the excellent reference.
Roger Binns wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Stanton wrote:
An elegant explanation. Write a book about it!
Chris Hertel already did. This is the bit about oplocks:
http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html#SMB.10.1
The index has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Stanton wrote:
> An elegant explanation. Write a book about it!
Chris Hertel already did. This is the bit about oplocks:
http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html#SMB.10.1
The index has pointers to a few other places where oplocks are discussed.
alone, add on.
Fred
-Original Message-
From: John Stanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:24 AM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share
An Sqlite redirector which runs as a daemon on the machine
hosting the
DB and has an
An Sqlite redirector which runs as a daemon on the machine hosting the
DB and has an API which provides the Sqlite API calls for remote clients
would solve these networking problems and maintain application code
compatibility. The sqlite3_open call would detect that the DB was
remote and the
An elegant explanation. Write a book about it!
Roger Binns wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jay Sprenkle wrote:
This sounds exactly like what
causes the trashed shared MS Access databases I've seen and network locking
issues I see warnings about here.
No it isn't.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jay Sprenkle wrote:
> This sounds exactly like what
> causes the trashed shared MS Access databases I've seen and network locking
> issues I see warnings about here.
No it isn't.
> How is this supposed to work correctly without the client being
> How is the first client 'contacted' and asked to respond?
> I can't see how this is anything but useless. I can't imagine very many
> programs honor this kind of request since I've never even heard of this
> before last week. If the first client doesn't respond to the request
> it would have to
On 1/10/07, Nuno Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How is the first client 'contacted' and asked to respond?
> I can't see how this is anything but useless. I can't imagine very many
> programs honor this kind of request since I've never even heard of this
> before last week. If the first
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jay Sprenkle wrote:
> How is the first client 'contacted' and asked to respond?
> I can't see how this is anything but useless. I can't imagine very many
> programs honor this kind of request since I've never even heard of this
> before last week. If
John Stanton wrote:
There are definite locking issues with some implementations of NFS.
Every time I see this NFS locking issue mentioned I wonder if there is a
tool which can determine whether the issue actually exists on a
particular system.
Martin
> Oplocks do not break things. Oplocks will guarantee consistency. They
> are granted when only one client OS has a file open letting that client
> OS perform locking and caching operations internally without consulting
> the server each time. If another client wants to open the file, then
>
Oplocks seems interesting. I will need to do some reading/testing.
Thanks for all the comments and hints.
/Daniel
Jay Sprenkle wrote:
I've heard this too. Windows networking has some issues with locking.
You might research 'oplocks' or 'opportunistic locking' (or
opportunistic caching)
if
Oplocks do not break things. Oplocks will guarantee consistency. They
are granted when only one client OS has a file open letting that client
OS perform locking and caching operations internally without consulting
the server each time. If another client wants to open the file, then
that second
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jay Sprenkle wrote:
> I've heard this too. Windows networking has some issues with locking.
> You might research 'oplocks' or 'opportunistic locking' (or
> opportunistic caching)
> if you're interested in understanding what it's doing. I was reading
>
I've heard this too. Windows networking has some issues with locking.
You might research 'oplocks' or 'opportunistic locking' (or
opportunistic caching)
if you're interested in understanding what it's doing. I was reading
it the other
day and thought it might be the key to making it work
I thought I read somewhere in the docs that this was not reliable (maybe
I dreamed it)???
This is great if this works, although I might still make the
socketserver for notifying when updates has been made.
Thank you for your replies.
John Stanton wrote:
Why not just use the SMB file locks if
Why not just use the SMB file locks if you are using the SMB networking?
Daniel Önnerby wrote:
Well.. I do not mean that I will use the socketserver to run queries
against it.
What I mean is that the database is opened by the applications from a
windows share. The socketserver is only used to
@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share
That should work quite well. We use such a strategy to implement
remote, multi user access to Sqlite databases. the user is unconcerned
about locking or contentions.
In our case we made the server run on port 80 (HTTP) and use
That should work quite well. We use such a strategy to implement
remote, multi user access to Sqlite databases. the user is unconcerned
about locking or contentions.
In our case we made the server run on port 80 (HTTP) and use regular
HTTP protocol so that it easily penetrates firewalls.
Hi all!
At the company I work we have a windows application that use sqlite for
the document format and this works great. We are now thinking about if
it would be possible to have multiple users to access the db
simultaneously from different computers (like a enterprise edition :) ).
I have
20 matches
Mail list logo
