It has promise but needs someone to polish it up.
(I didn't write it and have barely looked at the code.)
Tim.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 12:50:57PM -0700, Tom Lancaster wrote:
> I know, seems promising, doesn't it, especially after the overview in
> the DBI book. On the other hand, you can do most things another way -
> SSH port forwarding for encrypted data transmission, straight DBI/DBD
> available for most dbs, etc.
>
>
> Bill McCabe wrote:
> >
> > That's a shame. I can see good use for it. Is it the RPC chunk that is slow
> > and unreliable or the DBI part? Or has no one really pursued making a
> > production-quality module out of it?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > At 11:24 AM -0700 9/19/00, Tom Lancaster wrote:
> > >My experience of using DBI::Proxy several months ago is that it's
> > >terribly slow, and breaks all the time.
> > >It's not meant to be used in a production environment ( and that's
> > >according to the authors ).
> > >
> > >I managed to get it running, on linux and NT, but due to the lack of a
> > >working fork() or threads support in perl on NT, I could only use a
> > >single instance of the server at a time.
> > >If you can get it working *nix to *nix, your mileage may be better.
> > >
> > >Regards.
> > >
> > >Bill McCabe wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi All
> > >>
> > >> I'm thinking of restructuring my setup so that I have my apache/mod_perl
> > >> servers access database servers remotely using DBI::Proxy, rather than
> > >> locally. Does anyone have a sense of what kind of performance degradation I
> > >> should expect? Will it come chiefly from network latency (leaving
> > >> encryption out for the moment)? Also, I've never managed to install
> > >> DBI::Proxy successfully on any system (AIX 4.2.1/4.3.2/4.3.3, Red Hat
> > >> 6.0/1/2; perl 5.005/5.6.0; apache 1.3.12/mod_perl 1.24). The tests always
> > >> fails for the RPC piece. Is the RPC module typically this problematic?
> > >>
> > >> TIA
> > >>
> > >> Bill
