Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Re: Firebird for big projects |
---|---|
Author | Carlos H. Cantu |
Post date | 2009-12-04T11:34Z |
Michael, it seems that if you use FB 2.05 (or newer) you are safe to
kill the process (at last in linux). More details, check currently
discussion at fb-devel.
Carlos
Firebird Performance in Detail - http://videos.firebirddevelopersday.com
www.firebirdnews.org - www.FireBase.com.br
MW> Can you elaborate? We've been running classic exclusively for years, often
MW> using kill to stop open connections and we never had a single corruption. I
MW> was under the impression that this is the standard way to "kick" users.
MW> Classic has shown to be up to 2x faster than SS in our environment. I see it
MW> as a big plus for classic being able to kill single processes that are eating
MW> all resources (ie runaway queries) without needing to shutdown the whole
MW> firebird server. I am pretty sure i have read somewhere that killing
MW> fb_inet_server processes under classic should never have any ill-effects since
MW> it was designed for that "use case".
MW> Thanks,
MW> Michael
kill the process (at last in linux). More details, check currently
discussion at fb-devel.
Carlos
Firebird Performance in Detail - http://videos.firebirddevelopersday.com
www.firebirdnews.org - www.FireBase.com.br
MW> Can you elaborate? We've been running classic exclusively for years, often
MW> using kill to stop open connections and we never had a single corruption. I
MW> was under the impression that this is the standard way to "kick" users.
MW> Classic has shown to be up to 2x faster than SS in our environment. I see it
MW> as a big plus for classic being able to kill single processes that are eating
MW> all resources (ie runaway queries) without needing to shutdown the whole
MW> firebird server. I am pretty sure i have read somewhere that killing
MW> fb_inet_server processes under classic should never have any ill-effects since
MW> it was designed for that "use case".
MW> Thanks,
MW> Michael