Artur,

Thanks for your response. Your solution seems good for your situation, but
we're looking for more of a "fail-over" solution, so a IB/FB machine can
be physically switched off, but our system remains operational.

I can see how we could use real-time replication to keep an accurate copy of
the database, and switch to the copy version if the primary failed, but it
seems an awful lot like a "kludge" solution. Additionally, in our specific
case, we have 2,514 individual database files on our primary server, and I
have no idea how long it would take to set up replication (or maintain it)
for that many files. We obviously only have a handful of concurrent
connections to the IB server at one time, but I would have to guess it is a
bit of a performance drain for the replication engine to monitor that many
"potential" connections to the primary server.

Best Regards,

David Montgomery
montgomery@...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Artur Anjos [mailto:arsoft@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 1:32 PM
> To: ib-support@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [ib-support] Firebird and Network Attached Storage?
>
>
> David:
>
> Replication should be the alternative, but it depends on the application.
>
> I have implemented a solution that it's not very expensive, and the users
> looses maximum 'just' one hour of work if something went wrong
> with the main
> server (30/40 users online). I have two servers: on the main
> server, I do a
> backup each hour, and ftp it to the 'backup' server. I have an
> agent on the
> backup server that receives the backup and restore it. If the main server
> fails for any reason, one of the users went there, shutdown the
> main server
> and change the backup server IP to the one of the main server. In this
> situation, the users loose maximum 1 hour of work (if the main
> server fails
> after 10m of working, they will just loose 10m). This is a small 350Mb
> database, so everything it's fast.( the back up, zip and ftp takes about 3
> minutes). I have 2 nics in each server: one connected to main switch,
> another with a crossover cable between the 2 machines, just to
> speed up ftp
> transfer.
>
> It's not replication, but it's a solution. A cheap solution, with
> a defined
> 'time lost' production.
>
> I keep a small agent on the main server looking at some database
> changes and
> creating a log for some changes that could not be verified easily if
> something fails in a hour (such as the serial numbers of the
> units that are
> leaving the wharehouse): this log runs every 10 minutes, and is
> also ftp to
> the backup server.
>
> Another advantages: You really have backups of the database (The agent on
> the backup server mail to everyone if it didn't received a
> backup, and mail
> twice a day to someone saying that it did).
>
> What I'm trying to saying here it's that we can find alternative
> solutions.
>
> Artur
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Montgomery" <montgomery_list@...>
> To: <ib-support@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 8:47 PM
> Subject: RE: [ib-support] Firebird and Network Attached Storage?
>
>
> > Fred,
> >
> > If that is the case, then how do other IB/FB installations provide some
> type
> > of fail-over redundancy? Replication seems to be the only other
> > alternative, and with that scenario there would seem to need to be two
> > roughly comparable IB/FB servers sitting side-by-side, which
> seems like a
> > very expensive option...
> >
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com