Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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 poi

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

-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. Roge

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jay Sprenkle wrote: > So it sounds like turning them off ( they mentioned a windows registry > change in > one web page ) would be a good idea if you wanted to ensure database > integrity > on a shared directory. Oplocks have no effect on database in

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Önnerby wrote: > So what you are saying is that opening a SQLite DB on a shared network > drive SHOULD work with multiple clients (if all servers and NFS-version > are updated to most recent version)? Yes. However the locking implementations a

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

d 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 h

RE: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

007 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 API which provides the Sqlite API calls for > remote clients > would solve thes

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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 r

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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. H

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

Daniel Önnerby wrote: > So what you are saying is that opening a SQLite DB on a shared network > drive SHOULD work with multiple clients (if all servers and NFS-version > are updated to most recent version)? I have found that accessing a FileMaker Pro DB file, on a shared network drive, simu

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Önnerby wrote: > So what you are saying is that opening a SQLite DB on a shared network > drive SHOULD work with multiple clients (if all servers and NFS-version > are updated to most recent version)? No, I am stating that the claim in the orig

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

So what you are saying is that opening a SQLite DB on a shared network drive SHOULD work with multiple clients (if all servers and NFS-version are updated to most recent version)? Roger Binns wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jay Sprenkle wrote: This sounds exactly li

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

-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 noti

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

> 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

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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 client

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

-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 t

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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 -

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

There are definite locking issues with some implementations of NFS. You can avoid all the sharing problems by running a server, just like all the larger scale DBMS implementations. Daniel Önnerby wrote: I thought I read somewhere in the docs that this was not reliable (maybe I dreamed it)???

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

> 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 > th

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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 you'

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

-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 >

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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 correctly

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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 a

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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 ask permission to write to the database and notifying the other applications that an update has

Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

st of few PCs. Dusan -Original Message- From: John Stanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:21 PM To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org Subject: Re: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share That should work quite well. We use such a strategy to implement remote, multi

RE: [sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

@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

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 regular HTTP protocol so that it easily penetrates firewalls. Th

[sqlite] multiuser DB on network share

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 r