Subject Re: [Firebird-general] (unknown)
Author Svein Erling Tysvaer
Paul Beach wrote:
> Usual Marketing stuff
> 1. Re Classic, fine grained, multi-threaded SMP support for Firebird
> will be available in 3.0. Using the merge between Vulcan and the
> current Firebird code base. Work is taking place on the merge right
> now. Although there are som issues with the Vulcan code base now, it
> can be downloaded and experimented with as a snapshot. Interesting
> comment about Classic, there were a large number of InterBase *nix
> users that did not go to InterBase SuperServer, nor will utilise even
> the latest SMP Superserver because Classic provided a robust
> capability that SuperServer never did. i.e. if SuperServer dies it
> takes down the whole server, Classic only kills a single process all
> other users continue. This is still an issue for users today...
> 2. Limited Recovery - NBackup is in FB2.0
> 3. Performance Monitoring - is in FB2.1
> 4. Temporary Tables - FB2.1
> 5. "Like other open source databases, the only source of support for
> Firebird is third-party organizations. Unfortunately, third-party
> support providers do not have the access to and integration with the
> engineers developing the product that you find with commercial
> databases like InterBase and this limits both the level of support you
> can get and the speed with which you can get it."
> I particularly dislike this one.... :-) This is completely incorrect.
> IBP for example communicates and works with the developers and the
> project all the time.

I was actually most surprised by point 2. I thought the main thing that
was done after InterBase open-sourced, was to remove bugs - some of them
bugs that corrupted databases. In my opinion, you can't complain about
limited recovery without considering the chance of getting corruption.
Does anybody know how InterBase is regarding corrupting databases now? I
take it that it is considerably better than InterBase 6.0, but is the
engine as solid as or better than Firebird in this regard?