> "Jason Chapman (JAC2)" wrote:
> > Why is this not recommended, it would (unless there is a good reason

why),

> > be my upgrade path from 5.6 -> FB1.0. It gives the corporates the

feeling

> > that if there is a problem, that they could regress to 5.6.
>
> It has never been recommended to directly use a database created by an
> earlier version with a new server.

I must have missed something then. I thought then FB (over and above IB6)
supported this.

> The fact that Firebird can open older databases does not mean that it
> should be used to do so.

mmm.

> The escape routes are then
> a) you have a good (and hopefully tested) backup of the database
> that can be restored back to the IB5.6 server if something
> has gone wrong.
> and
> b) you can attach to the new database with a v5.n client kit and
> backup it up for later restore to a v5 server.

You're right, but that gives me a 16 hour turn around from deciding I want
to regress, to backup to restore to live on 5.

> I just don't follow this at all. Only one server can attach to the
> database at a time. How can you use the two servers in parallel? What am
> I missing?

We have 4 versions of the same DB, 1 live administration (owns 50% of the
DB), 1 live accounts DB (owns 50% of the DB), 1 backup DB and 1 reporting
DB. I was going to introduce FB in a least risk path i.e. Reporting (for a
week), Backup (for a week), Accounts (for a week), then Admin. This will
give me more test results that I can generate in the lab in terms of
performance, concurrency, long term effects of the server being up etc etc.

Anyway, don't want to make a big deal about it, it was just my plan, will
now amend.

BTW good work all who actually put effort into the FB process, it's a real
achievement.

JAC.