On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 11:30 +0200, djm wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> >> My understanding, after all of your helpful comments, currently is:
> >>
> >> Simultaneous reading of a server file by different clients is safe, as
> >> long as the file doesnt get changed at all (at least in a time scale
> >>
Hello,
>> My understanding, after all of your helpful comments, currently is:
>>
>> Simultaneous reading of a server file by different clients is safe, as
>> long as the file doesnt get changed at all (at least in a time scale
>> where the Client Os could cache it).
Mrs.> Remove your
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 00:30 +0200, djm wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Henry> No. It might be on your particular systems, but we cannot make
> Henry> a general case. It is possible that it will always be safe on
> Henry> (for example) Windows 2000, while not safe on NT or XP! It
> Henry> depends on how the
Hello,
Henry> No. It might be on your particular systems, but we cannot make
Henry> a general case. It is possible that it will always be safe on
Henry> (for example) Windows 2000, while not safe on NT or XP! It
Henry> depends on how the OS handles caching. They are supposed to
Henry> check on
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 08:46 -0500, Henry Miller wrote:
> >In my opinion system time stamps etc are not a reliable means of
> >comparing 2 files. Many things can change the timestamp of a file,
> >without changing the contents, and one (server) os/filesystem can
> >report a different file size to
On 8/3/2005 at 10:34 djm wrote:
>Wednesday, August 3, 2005, 4:41:24 AM, you wrote:
>
>> No, none of those things are guaranteed. If there's even a single
>> writer it can be unsafe (consider AFS putting a corrupt journal up
>> that clients notice download, and thrash their local copy).
>
>But
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 10:34 +0200, djm wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Wednesday, August 3, 2005, 4:41:24 AM, you wrote:
>
> > No, none of those things are guaranteed. If there's even a single
> > writer it can be unsafe (consider AFS putting a corrupt journal up
> > that clients notice download, and thrash
Hello,
Wednesday, August 3, 2005, 4:41:24 AM, you wrote:
> No, none of those things are guaranteed. If there's even a single
> writer it can be unsafe (consider AFS putting a corrupt journal up
> that clients notice download, and thrash their local copy).
But Im saying there -wont- be a single
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 17:36 +0200, djm wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks very much for the detailed and helpful response. Ill certainly
> have a look at the book you receommended.. thanks for the tip.
>
> Sunday, July 31, 2005, 4:47:11 PM, you wrote:
>
> > As a result, any piece of software that
something like sql server is likely better for the task. sqlite can
lag quite a bit when it needs to get file locks over the network to
stay atomic.
On 7/28/05, djm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The documentation suggests that its unsafe to use SQLite when the
> database file is on a
Hello,
> Understanding what underlying operations aren't safe, is helpful.
Im not sure what this should mean. Can you please elaborate.
> If there's never any writers, why bother keeping it on the network?
I do have reasons, most of which are based on particular customer
requirenments.
> Have
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 11:28 +0200, djm wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The documentation suggests that its unsafe to use SQLite when the
> database file is on a windows network server and various other
> machines may want to simultaneously access it. If however none of
> these machines change the data in the
On Jul 30, 2005, at 8:22 AM, djm wrote:
Nobody?
Hello,
The documentation suggests that its unsafe to use SQLite when the
database file is on a windows network server and various other
machines may want to simultaneously access it. If however none of
these machines change the data in the
Nobody?
> Hello,
> The documentation suggests that its unsafe to use SQLite when the
> database file is on a windows network server and various other
> machines may want to simultaneously access it. If however none of
> these machines change the data in the databse (all accesses are just
>
Hello,
The documentation suggests that its unsafe to use SQLite when the
database file is on a windows network server and various other
machines may want to simultaneously access it. If however none of
these machines change the data in the databse (all accesses are just
queries) is it then
15 matches
Mail list logo
