Hi !
I dont know what 's up behind the scenes - but I have some years of
experience updating a Interbase Database
via ISDN dialup lines via Internet. We had a database/Web-Applcation
server hosted at the provider and made all 60 minutes
update to the remote database via 64Kbit line (local call) - we did not
update Blob fields ! But it was really accetable in speed and stability.
We used of course embedded SQL C programmes to update from UNIX to
WINDOWS database.
So I am still convinced it is doable.

The most pleased was the Telekom for billing us the dialups :'( OK this
is some year ago.
Now we a 2 MBit fixed line - I guess basically it did not change too
much from IB4.0 to FB1

BTW:
For Blob Update I must say that this is really week / slow by remote
connections- even in a 100 Mbit Lan . Here I tried hard to get
this boosted but as now no big success - the FTP transfer of the BLOB
data (think of a TIFF file about 2 MB) is FAR faster then
the BLOB update from database to database.

yours
Claus

Dimitry Sibiryakov schrieb:

>On 12 May 2004 at 15:26, marcoaureliocastro wrote:
>
>
>
>> Why the full band is not used? As as comparation, it is very
>>faster if I connect to the remote server using Windows Terminal
>>Server (using the same modem). I belive that should be faster if
>>just the data bytes from the FireBird server was traveling in the
>>Internet. The FireBird is in a Linux server and the Terminat Server
>>is a marquared port.
>>
>>
>
> All this is happening because FB wire protocol was not developed
>for connections with big round-trip time. FB sends quite a few little
>packets and waits the answer for each one. Actually, it is one packet
>for each API call except may be isc_dsql_fetch().
> Problem becomes even worse if you use an high-level envelope
>library in your program (like IBO or FIB+) because such libraries
>used to perform many operations which could be skipped according to
>your exactly needs.
>
> SY, Dimitry Sibiryakov.
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>