--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Alan McDonald" <alan@...> wrote:

>
> > > if I saw this error in my logs I would be doing a backup/restore
> > immediately
> > > to ensure no corruption.
> >
> > This DB contains 1 table with 38 records.
> > They are all there.
> > There is never add'ed any records.
> > There is never deleted any records.
> > A backup - restore can be performed tonigth, but wasn't last night.
> >
> > > Was the db moved by backup, then restore on the new server? or file
> > copied?
> >
> > It was copied from the old server to the new one.
> > No users where connected at the time.
> > The FB was stopped prior to copying.
>
> copied from 64 bit to a 32 bit OS? Is that a good idea?

I can't see that this should cause a problem.
The filesystem are the same .... AFAIK.

>
> >
> > > Is E a physical HD? hope it's not a logical one - I don't know what
> > "SX80
> > > storage" means if it's not a real HD.
> >
> > Its a RAID 10 storage. I think its called a SAN array.
> >
> >
> > > How may simultaneous users do you have?
> >
> > between 50 and 200. Give or take a few.
> >
> >
> > > I always had in the back of my mind that 100 would be tops - after
> > that I
> > > use a 3rd tier.
> >
> > This I don't understand.
>
> oh dear. I think 100 has for a long time been a magic maximum of
> simultaneous connections to FB before you are encouraged to provide

a middle

> layer to your connections to allow connection pooling. A middle tier

will

> make, say, 50 live connectiosn to the db server and your 200 clients

will

> connect to the middle tier. This ensures that the FB server load is

managed

> more appropriately.
> See RemObjects as an example which is popularly used. I haven't tried it
> myself, but I know that such a move (to middle tier connections)

requires a

> fair amount of architectural change in the way you think of your

application

> acquiring/using data served and posted back to the server.
> I know there are some people on this list who have high numbers of
> simultaneous user connections - maybe much more than 100. I have always
> resorted, though, to providing more servers and I replicate data

between the

> servers. I spread the load around by ensuring users are connected to
> different servers. The data is never more than about 5 minutes out

of sync.

> But some architectures won't tolerate this. I'm luck my setups have

always

> been able to do this. If I were scaling to 200+ users and I were

forced to

> use one server only, I would be using a middle tier like RemObjects.

I never heard of any of this.
I see you point in replicating among several servers to ensure
performance etc. Actually a good idea.

But before we installed this new server, they actually ran with the
same amount of connections on a lesser server. Without problems.

Michael

>
> Alan
>
> >
> > Michael
> > > Alan
> >
>