Subject | Re: [ib-support] File system |
---|---|
Author | Nataraj S Narayanan |
Post date | 2002-02-21T20:37:26Z |
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Aleksey Karyakin wrote:
2.5. The medical.gdb is used in multi-user mode (2 systems) inspite of
being 'local
Interbase'. I am using host file entries for DNS resolution and gave paths
in the BDE as hostname:c:\data\medical.gdb.
The local 'gurus' tell me that this is a dangerous course to take. I
installed networking just the other month. The system crashed after 2
weeks giving 'transaction' errors. There were a lots of missing from a
detail table inspite of the header record being intact on the master
table. But then the setup had'nt a UPS at that time. The file system was
of course vfat.
Now that the cuustomer has setup a UPS 2 days back , the fellow wants me
to setup the networking again. But i am apprehensive.
Is the data curruption dur to lack of UPS? Would an NTFS have recovered
the data and the missing detail table records? The size of gdb file is
50 MB. Or is it the problem of DNS - should i have gone for a real DNS
server rather than 'hosts' file?
Please help me out all of you and prevent me from a chronically frustrated
man.
regards
--
Nataraj S Narayanan
Synergy Info Systems
Kochi,India-683 503
Ph:95 484 557244
> >I have to maintain a 110 old Local IB 4 installations on Win 98/D1/BDE
> > Once upon a time Lilya Kozlenko said that NT4 with NTFS
> > can rollback a couple of filesystem transactions after a
> > hard failure (reset, trap and so on). If any file was
> > created or extended just before the crash, these changes
> > would disappear and DB file could be unrecoverable damaged.
>
> It seems that you do not understand how journalling FS work. Only
> inconsistent chages in metadata only are rolled back to move file system to
> previous stable state. NTFS does not journal changes in in file data because
> it would cost too much and therefore it doesn't guarantee no data loss so
> one should not expect this without hardware redundance and UPS.
>
> > So, FAT could be a more reliable choice. Besides, FAT is a
>
> No, NTFS is certainly a choice for production systems over FAT.
>
> No. NTFS performance might be slightly better or worse depending on file
> size and other factors. In general, the difference is negletable.
>
2.5. The medical.gdb is used in multi-user mode (2 systems) inspite of
being 'local
Interbase'. I am using host file entries for DNS resolution and gave paths
in the BDE as hostname:c:\data\medical.gdb.
The local 'gurus' tell me that this is a dangerous course to take. I
installed networking just the other month. The system crashed after 2
weeks giving 'transaction' errors. There were a lots of missing from a
detail table inspite of the header record being intact on the master
table. But then the setup had'nt a UPS at that time. The file system was
of course vfat.
Now that the cuustomer has setup a UPS 2 days back , the fellow wants me
to setup the networking again. But i am apprehensive.
Is the data curruption dur to lack of UPS? Would an NTFS have recovered
the data and the missing detail table records? The size of gdb file is
50 MB. Or is it the problem of DNS - should i have gone for a real DNS
server rather than 'hosts' file?
Please help me out all of you and prevent me from a chronically frustrated
man.
regards
--
Nataraj S Narayanan
Synergy Info Systems
Kochi,India-683 503
Ph:95 484 557244