| Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Re: Evaluating FB 1.5 questions |
|---|---|
| Author | Tim Ledgerwood |
| Post date | 2004-06-22T07:27:06Z |
At 09:01 AM 22/06/2004, you wrote:
point - something of Interbase)
I have developed several small applications for various clients through the
years, where the requirement is a server DB that does not require a DBA. It
is one of the things I absolutely love about IB/FB.
I have developed stand - alone apps, apps that run on small networks, and
apps that run on large networks with many users. The largest IB
installation that I have written for still runs on a WAN with about 200
simultaneous users. (And version 5 - point - something of Interbase) I was
1500 km away from the server tha DB was on - and found it easy to talk the
techie on the other side through basic DB maintenance operations.
There are probably about 2500 installed IB/FB servers in Southern Africa as
well as other parts of the world for apps I have written. After I learned
how to programatically automate much of the maintenance work required,
there is even less need for a DBA. The latest application I work on has FB
installed on small LANS - 3 or 4 machines - and there are about 500
installations. These are installed by our engineers, but I do have an
application out there that does a silent install.
So - in my experience, IB/FB requires NO dba. At absolute worst, it
requires that I (once in a very long while indeed) provide remote
telephonic support. It is powerful, simple, and easy to use. I think that
some of the argument is based on the reasoning "it's a server DB, and
therefore requires a DBA because server DBs require DBAs"
In my humble experience, nothing could be further from the truth.
Just my 2c
Regards
Tim
>Helen, All,I have been developing against Interbase/Firebird since 1997. (Version 4 -
>just my 2c.
>
>1) regardless of what Dimitry might think, InterBase/Firebird has
>never *required* a DBA and I will do everything I can to perpetuate
>this state of things. Which would not imply that it cannot work in an
>enterprise scenario with security, tuning and a DBA, just that it
>*can* run seamlessly in less demanding environments without a DBA.
point - something of Interbase)
I have developed several small applications for various clients through the
years, where the requirement is a server DB that does not require a DBA. It
is one of the things I absolutely love about IB/FB.
I have developed stand - alone apps, apps that run on small networks, and
apps that run on large networks with many users. The largest IB
installation that I have written for still runs on a WAN with about 200
simultaneous users. (And version 5 - point - something of Interbase) I was
1500 km away from the server tha DB was on - and found it easy to talk the
techie on the other side through basic DB maintenance operations.
There are probably about 2500 installed IB/FB servers in Southern Africa as
well as other parts of the world for apps I have written. After I learned
how to programatically automate much of the maintenance work required,
there is even less need for a DBA. The latest application I work on has FB
installed on small LANS - 3 or 4 machines - and there are about 500
installations. These are installed by our engineers, but I do have an
application out there that does a silent install.
So - in my experience, IB/FB requires NO dba. At absolute worst, it
requires that I (once in a very long while indeed) provide remote
telephonic support. It is powerful, simple, and easy to use. I think that
some of the argument is based on the reasoning "it's a server DB, and
therefore requires a DBA because server DBs require DBAs"
In my humble experience, nothing could be further from the truth.
Just my 2c
Regards
Tim