Subject | Re: Firebird 1.5.2 client on Win 2000 |
---|---|
Author | Tony Masefield |
Post date | 2005-07-29T18:01:47Z |
--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Helen Borrie <helebor@t...>
wrote:
You've presented me with a lot of information to check out which I
will do over the next couple of days. Today being Friday is my 'day-
off' (I'm in the middle east at the moment) but I popped in to work
to check my production unit (runs 7X24) and also have a quick look
at the server.
The server (host) with FB (1.5.1 - put it on some months ago - will
upgrade to 1.5.2 this week) runs Win 2003 server. FB is running as a
service, not an application. Guardian was 'on' but turned it off
this morning (based on my readings from last night re the encissity
of having the Guardian on on platforms that are not Win 9X or ME).
Had a look in the Services file (System32\Drivers\etc.), there is no
setting for Port 3050.
The FB DB is on the D drive of the same server in a shared folder
(historical, have turned off sharing this am and confirmed the app
still runs OK on my laptop).
The D drive has been mapped to allow users to store their PC data on
it for backup purposes but I'm not trying to address it as a mapped
drive IRO the FB DB (see below).
This server is also the 'primary' server for Oracle and runs as an
application server for Oracle 6X. There is a second server that acts
as the Oracle DB server.
Connection string in the app is of the type "MyServer:D:\directory".
Perhaps I should use the implicit IP address?
What still frustrates me is the situation that i described
previously - the app just resulted in the 'thanks for trying FIB'
screen and then the MS error screen. However, logging on to the
application server from the 'Win 2000 PC' client as the
administrator (and doing nothing), then re-running the app worked.
It was is if the server was saying "OK, I now recognise that you are
there and will from this point on 'service' you".
Will check the app on the Win 2000 machine tomorrow (in someone
else's office) and see if it still works.
Am also setting up a 'virgin' PC in the lab (Win XP) which will be
connected to the LAN during the next couple of days. Will try and
reproduce what happened with the Win 2000 client PC or rather set it
up as per 'standard' and see what happens.
In the meantime, as mentioned at the outset, will go through the
information you generously supplied and see what else I can pick up.
Thanks and regards,
Tony
wrote:
> At 03:53 AM 29/07/2005 +0000, you wrote:I
> >Hi All,
> >
> >An update to the original post on this subject:
> >
> >When I initially copied the FDB file to the server from my laptop
> >had had to log on as the server administrator. After doing thisthe
> >application on my laptop ran fine, even though the connection tothe
> >server was disconnected/reconnected a few times.machine
> >When trying the app on the Win 2000 client it wouldn't work.
> >However, logging on to the server yesterday from the Win 200
> >as administrator, and then trying the app now works.a network
> >Obviously I'm missing something here in terms of the necessity to
> >log onto the server in the first instance (the FDB is, BTW, in a
> >shared folder on the server).
>
> It shouldn't be. Were you trying to access a "host" that was not
> node, but a mapped device? This will fail.(for
>
> The host has to be the actual node name of the server host machine
> Windows Named Pipes connection). By default, a Windows serverbroadcasts
> its Windows node name as its TCP/IP host name; although, forTCP/IP, you
> also have the option of connecting to the machine by some othername,
> provided you place an entry in the Hosts file of the server and(usefully)
> the client(s) that maps the host machine's IP address to that name.refer to a
>
> For example, many the command-line pastings in the Firebird book
> server named "hotchicken". They came from my main Windows box,whose node
> name is "dev". The pastings are genuine, though. In the server'shosts
> file, I have entries like the first two for that machine's IPaddress:
>when there
> 10.12.13.1 dev # node name of main Win32 box
> 10.12.13.1 hotchicken # server for Firebird Book examples
> 10.12.13.2 coolduck # main Linux development box
> 10.12.13.2 fluffy # main Linux box under Win2K
> 10.12.13.3 rusty # apache/IIS host (Windows)
> 10.12.13.3 rustyx # apache host (Linux)
> ..... and so on.
>
>
> >Why logging on to the server just once should cause the app to run
> >from that point forward I don't understand.
>
> I don't understand it, either, but it has been reported before
> was confusion about what actually constitutes a "host".would
>
> >I had assumed (obviously wrongly) that setting the port at 3050
> >bypass the server log-on requirements.like) the
>
> No. Running the Firebird server as a service "bypasses" (if you
> need for anyone to be logged on to the host machine in order for aservice
> to be available to authorised network users. As a rule, serversshould not
> be left logged on.through port
>
> The Firebird service broadcasts to potential TCP/IP clients
> 3050, regardless of whether you run the Fb server as a service oran
> application. (FB embedded, of course, doesn't broadcast through anetwork
> port at all..) Setting the port to 3050 is actually unnecessary inthe
> Firebird, if the installer was used to install it. Port 3050 is
> default port and the installer writes a services file entry for itif it
> isn't already there.storage
>
> >Actually, at the moment, the FDB is resident on the application
> >server which also runs a commercial Oracle based program (which in
> >turn is connected to a DB server). The Oracle program is still
> >under "development/modification" (for the last 10 months) so I am
> >trying to avoid any 'interference' with this aspect.
>
> By "FDB" do you mean the database file? Is the database file on a
> device that is under the direct control of Fb server's hostmachine? It
> has to be.based
>
> >The one thing I haven't checked yet is what strain of Windows is
> >running on the application server at this time.
>
> Windows XP Home, ME or 9x would be the source of different network-
> problems than the NT variants (NT 4, Win2K, XP Pro or Server2003).Hi Helen,
>
> ./heLen
You've presented me with a lot of information to check out which I
will do over the next couple of days. Today being Friday is my 'day-
off' (I'm in the middle east at the moment) but I popped in to work
to check my production unit (runs 7X24) and also have a quick look
at the server.
The server (host) with FB (1.5.1 - put it on some months ago - will
upgrade to 1.5.2 this week) runs Win 2003 server. FB is running as a
service, not an application. Guardian was 'on' but turned it off
this morning (based on my readings from last night re the encissity
of having the Guardian on on platforms that are not Win 9X or ME).
Had a look in the Services file (System32\Drivers\etc.), there is no
setting for Port 3050.
The FB DB is on the D drive of the same server in a shared folder
(historical, have turned off sharing this am and confirmed the app
still runs OK on my laptop).
The D drive has been mapped to allow users to store their PC data on
it for backup purposes but I'm not trying to address it as a mapped
drive IRO the FB DB (see below).
This server is also the 'primary' server for Oracle and runs as an
application server for Oracle 6X. There is a second server that acts
as the Oracle DB server.
Connection string in the app is of the type "MyServer:D:\directory".
Perhaps I should use the implicit IP address?
What still frustrates me is the situation that i described
previously - the app just resulted in the 'thanks for trying FIB'
screen and then the MS error screen. However, logging on to the
application server from the 'Win 2000 PC' client as the
administrator (and doing nothing), then re-running the app worked.
It was is if the server was saying "OK, I now recognise that you are
there and will from this point on 'service' you".
Will check the app on the Win 2000 machine tomorrow (in someone
else's office) and see if it still works.
Am also setting up a 'virgin' PC in the lab (Win XP) which will be
connected to the LAN during the next couple of days. Will try and
reproduce what happened with the Win 2000 client PC or rather set it
up as per 'standard' and see what happens.
In the meantime, as mentioned at the outset, will go through the
information you generously supplied and see what else I can pick up.
Thanks and regards,
Tony