Hi there.
-=0-=0=-=0
My real problem is actually the top part the PS part is something that I
picked up a while ago and actually
wanted to let people know about it as it is odd but we have moved around it.

But I really need to get the above problem fixed urgently

Thanks

At 16:34 04/03/2003 +1100, you wrote:

>At 06:40 AM 4/03/2003 +0200, you wrote:
> >Good day
> >\-\=-\=-=\-\=-
> >
> >I have sat down and looked at the source of the Delphi program that works
> >with the database as the idea that the trigger on the database is giving a
> >problem does not
> >make sense and this is the result.
> >
> >I have a Delphi server program and a Delphi client program that runs on the
> >same database. Client is Delphi 3 and Server is Delphi 5.
> >The client program starts a business trigger and the server then tries to
> >act on this trigger, but its connection that is setup in the BDE as
> >localhost:d:\db\promed.gdb is then dropped. in the sense that I get a 10054
> >error locally at the server. It seems this is happening at a other
> client also
> >but from the client machines also. Will the server program really have a
> >problem if there is a problem with the networkcard as locahost is the
> >loopback device that
> >is 127.0.0.1 ???
>
>No, this is just fine for the server program - just as the doctor ordered.
>
>
> >Interbase version : 5.6
> >Database sizes from : 250 - 830 MB
> >
> >Other strange events :
> >
> >When trying to get the connection user list of the interbase database I get
> >a connection lost to database. After that the server crashes and need to be
> >restarted.
> >
> >PS : Has anybody noticed that if the alias via BDE to the interbase
> >database is <servername>:d\db\promed.gdb (Notice there is no : after the
> >first d) and there is a network share for D.
>
>This is simply wrong. There are two known problems here.
>
>First, Windows will allow this bizarre connection string and, at the time
>IB 5.6 was distributed, Borland didn't know about it. This situation will
>cause overt and irreparable data corruption because, effectively, the
>database server treats the two different styles as connections to two
>*different* database - hence, no concurrency protection, since each
>connection appears as an exclusive connection. The more users that log in,
>the worse the damage will get. I'd say you have to be GRATEFUL that the
>server crashes.
>
>The second thing (and I know that I have mentioned it at least once in this
>thread) is that a remote client can't connect to a share (even if you get
>the protocol right, which it isn't).
>Period.
>
> >Then SOMETIMES on some
> >networks there is a problem that if this method of connection WORKS then
> >the datbase gets corrupt FAR bejond repair. I get the Idea that it uses
> >network cache or something and is out of sync with the machines OS cache.
>
>It's not odd at all. It is just a case in point of a known bug. It is
>known as "the connection path bug". Make sure you fix it PDQ.
>
>Boy, hasn't it taken some squeezing to get at the real parameters of this
>problem...?
>
>heLen
>
>
>
>
>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/