On 24 Feb 2014, at 12:07pm, Richard Schülein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is there anything needed to store the Database itself on a shared network > devices? In my opinion this is similar to an USB drive etc. That means, that > the drive don’t even know, where the database is stored. Or is there really > a difference between local storage and network storage from the view on the > Database access? There is no problem with accessing a remote file just because it is remote. I have accessed SQLite databases using NFS, SMB, AFP, and other technologies without problems. The problems with SQLite and networking are to do with locking the database. Locking does not work properly when your file is not on the application's computer. If you run one one computer with one application with one thread which accesses the database you will encounter no problems. If you have two computers or two processes or two threads which use the database at once, you may encounter problems because database locking may not work correctly. SQLite may be told that a file is not locked when it is locked. SQLite may be told that a file has been updated on disk when only the memory copy has been updated. Unfortunately the problems are not predictable: one setup may work fine and another may have problems even if the two appear to be the same. Some manufacturers write slow drivers which work correctly. Other manufacturers write drivers which only pretend to work properly, because that way they can work faster. So single-user single-process use of a database, without hardware faults or power faults, should not present a problem. Simon. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
