Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Problems with the service of FireBird Server |
---|---|
Author | Gustavo |
Post date | 2009-04-03T00:07:22Z |
Helen:
First of all, thanks for your answer.
The users form the other building connect to the server (the PC with Windows
XP which has the EXE of the application and the databases .FDB files) using
Terminal Server. Then they run the EXE.
Each time a user starts the application, he connects to 6 databases. That´s
why when the 11th user starts the application, he exceeds the connections
limit of 64.
Yes, they have XP SP3. I googled what you said but I found nothing about a
TCP/IP to < 64 concurrent connections limit. What I found is that there is a
limit of 10 concurrent "half connections", that is simultaneous connection
attempts and apparently this is, as you said, to protect against worm virus.
I finally don´t know if the cause is really Windows XP (or XP SP3) or NOD32
or both, but I follow Vlad´s suggestion of not using TCP/IP connections and
it seems to be working. What I did is not to use HOST:path and instead I use
\\HOST\path. For Terminal server I had to use \\127.0.0.1\\path because
\\LOCALHOST\path doesn´t work. BTW does anybody knows why this doesn´t work?
And now I have a question:
Is there any difference in using HOST:path against using \\HOST\path in
performance, security, etc.?
Thanks to everybody!
First of all, thanks for your answer.
The users form the other building connect to the server (the PC with Windows
XP which has the EXE of the application and the databases .FDB files) using
Terminal Server. Then they run the EXE.
Each time a user starts the application, he connects to 6 databases. That´s
why when the 11th user starts the application, he exceeds the connections
limit of 64.
Yes, they have XP SP3. I googled what you said but I found nothing about a
TCP/IP to < 64 concurrent connections limit. What I found is that there is a
limit of 10 concurrent "half connections", that is simultaneous connection
attempts and apparently this is, as you said, to protect against worm virus.
I finally don´t know if the cause is really Windows XP (or XP SP3) or NOD32
or both, but I follow Vlad´s suggestion of not using TCP/IP connections and
it seems to be working. What I did is not to use HOST:path and instead I use
\\HOST\path. For Terminal server I had to use \\127.0.0.1\\path because
\\LOCALHOST\path doesn´t work. BTW does anybody knows why this doesn´t work?
And now I have a question:
Is there any difference in using HOST:path against using \\HOST\path in
performance, security, etc.?
Thanks to everybody!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Helen Borrie" <helebor@...>
To: <firebird-support@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] Problems with the service of FireBird Server
> At 06:44 AM 2/04/2009, you wrote:
>>Hello:
>>
>>I have an application in Delphi which uses FireBird 2.0.1 Superserver.
>>
>>It is installed in an enterprise which has 8 users in a local network and
>>5 users in another building. These 5 users, use the application accesing
>>via Terminal Server to the PC where the application is installed since 2
>>years ago.
>
> How would these external users "access via terminal server"? Are they
> running their applications on a disk somewhere in the internal network?
>
>
>>The application and the FDB files are in a PC which, till 2 months ago had
>>Windows 2003 Server. Then they changed this to Windows XP (¡don´t ask why
>>please!).
>
> Windows XP disallows all *Windows networking* connections once the total
> connections of *any* sort exceeds the number of licences. That means
> counting connections to printers, etc., as well as all remote desktop
> instances. These "windows networking" limits do not apply to
> TCP/IP...although installations have their own default limits that, again,
> depends on which edition of XP they installed.
>
>>This worked fine during 2 months, but this week it started a problem: 5, 6
>>or 7 times a day, every user (in the local network or by terminal server)
>>looses contact with the database at the same time. When this happens, I
>>check the Service Control Manager and I see that the service "Firebird
>>Server - DefaultInstance" is started. Then, I stopped it (I get an error
>>1067 but it stops), I started it again, and then every user can connect
>>again to the database... till the next time it fails.
>
> Check whether they installed Service Pack 3, or perhaps one of the many
> update patches from Windows Update that have been popping up in recent
> weeks in response to the conficker worm virus. Either way, their network
> problems could be related: if they did install SP3 and the recent
> updates, their own users could be suffering the effects of the
> "protection"; if they didn't install them, they might be acting as a
> "zombie" for conficker.
>
> SP3 by default hobbles TCP/IP to < 64 concurrent connections. If SP3 is
> in the picture, try googling for solutions. If this turns out to be the
> cause of the problem, maybe (after fixing the network issue) you need to
> look at why such a small number of "users" is accumulating such a large
> number of concurrent connections...for example, are they running the
> Guardian with Classic? etc.
>
> For Firebird's part, it is stumped if the network is configured to block
> connection requests. It has no control over the network: it completely
> relies on the network transport's capability to provide sockets on
> request.
>
> ./heLen
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Visit http://www.firebirdsql.org and click the Resources item
> on the main (top) menu. Try Knowledgebase and FAQ links !
>
> Also search the knowledgebases at http://www.ibphoenix.com
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>