Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

2014-01-23 Thread Thomas Steinmaurer 
Hello,

> AFAIK, the parameter DefaultDbCachePages is intended for newly created
> databases as default size of cache pages. It doesn't have effect on existing
> databases where its own setting is used. Every database can have own setting
> about count of cache pages.

The DefaultDbCachePages parameter in firebird.conf applies when page 
buffers of the database is set to 0.

> It seems to be still not solving this problem using by FileSystemCacheSize.
>
> What else can I test?

I haven't followed the entire thread, but first I would rule out I/O 
problems like faulty RAID controllers etc. In a particular case I was 
called, although a high-end server in that case, performance was worse 
than on an oldish laptop.

Then there are various tuning/optimizations techniques and settings, 
which I usually discuss and go through at customer sites. Page size, 
page buffers, hash slots, increasing RAM usage for the sorting module 
etc. Once the tuning/configuration side is exhausted, SQL tuning is 
probably the most important thing. At least from my experience.

For sure, I would move away from SuperServer to Classic or SuperClassic 
to get an overall increase in CPU utilization in a multi-user 
environment. Although e.g. gbak is still bound to a single core.


-- 
With regards,
Thomas Steinmaurer
http://www.upscene.com/

Professional Tools and Services for Firebird
FB TraceManager, IB LogManager, Database Health Check, Tuning etc.


>
> <<< 22.01.2014 15:05 - Hugo Eyng "hugoe...@msn.com" >>>
>
>   
> Try changing values for DefaultDbCachePages
>
> Em 21/01/2014 18:40, Roland Turcan escreveu:
>
> I have tried to change this parameter (actually =20), but I don't see
> any change.
>
> My server box is:
>
> Hewlett Packard server
> Intel Xeon CPU E31220 @ 3.10GHx
> 10GB RAM (8 GB RAM is usable)
>
> Firebird 2.5.2 64bit SuperServer
> single database is being used
> where its size is about 80GB
>
> When I copy any big file to test the performance of disk field then I
> can see
> that it can force disk performance, but Firebird is still relaxing.
>
> When I try to backup database using "gbak" no change. CPU core is on
> 3-6% and disk
> load is about 1MB/s
>
> What can I check else?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> TRoland;
>
>
> <<< 21.01.2014 15:17 - Hugo Eyng "hugoe...@msn.com"
> 
>   
> I changed the paramter FileSystemCacheSize = 0 to FileSystemCacheSize =
> 20 in the firebird.conf
> as suggested in:
>
> http://dyemanov.blogspot.com.br/2012/03/firebird-vs-windows-file-system-caching.html
>
> Hugo
>
> Em 21/01/2014 12:06, Roland Turcan escreveu:
>
> Yes, I am interested too.
>
> What was the key to get rid of this problem?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> <<< 21.01.2014 15:29 - Fabiano - Desenvolvimento SCI
> "fabi...@sci10.com.br" 
>   
>
> How you solved your problem?
>
> *De: *firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com]
> *Em nome de *Hugo Eyng
> *Enviada em:* terça-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2014 10:24
> *Para: *firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
> 
> *Assunto:* Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit
> performance on Windows 2008 R2
>
>
> Hi Helen.
>
> Thanks for your answer.
>
> You are right.
>
> But the "Windows 64 file cache performance"  was a problem, as said Sean.
>
> Só 'reserving' 10GB as a RAM DRIVE grant that I would have always
> available RAM.
>
> But now I solved the 'cache performance' and I will not need RAM DRIVE
> anymore.
>
> Even so, the FB performance is not compatible to the hardware used to
> run it.
> Em 20/01/2014 23:12, Helen Borrie escreveu:
>
> At 02:01 p.m. 21/01/2014, Hugo Eyng wrote:
>
>>As Firebird do not use available RAM I created a RAM DRIVE with 10GB and 
>>pointed parameter 'TempDirectories' (firebird.conf) to this RAM DRIVE, but FB 
>>just uses it rarely in very big 'SELECT'. OK, when FB uses the RAM DRIVE it 
>>increases a SELECT speed in more than 80%. I expected FB could use this for 
>>every SELECTS and so improve the application.
>
> Fb uses RAM directly for sorts, if enough is available. It only takes
> the sort sets to disk if available RAM is insufficient.
>
> Helen Borrie, Support Consultant, IBPhoenix (Pacific)
> Author of "The Firebird Book" and "The Firebird Book Second Edition"
> http://www.firebird-books.net
> __
>
>
> --
>
>
> Atenciosamente,
>
> Hugo Eyng
>
>
>
> How you solved your problem?
>
> *De: *firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com]
> *Em nome de *Hugo Eyng
> *Enviada em:* terça-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2014 10:24
> *Para: *firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
> 
> *Assunto:* Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit
> performance on Windows 2008 R2
>
>
> Hi Helen.
>
> Thanks for you

Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

2014-01-23 Thread Roland Turcan 
<<< 23.01.2014 9:11 - Thomas Steinmaurer "t...@iblogmanager.com" >>>
TS> Hello,

Hello Thomas,

 >> AFAIK, the parameter DefaultDbCachePages is intended for newly created
 >> databases as default size of cache pages. It doesn't have effect on existing
 >> databases where its own setting is used. Every database can have own setting
 >> about count of cache pages.
TS>  
TS>  The DefaultDbCachePages parameter in firebird.conf applies when page 
TS>  buffers of the database is set to 0.

Thanks  for  this  info.  This  is  not  described  as  you  write  in
firebird.conf.

 >> It seems to be still not solving this problem using by FileSystemCacheSize.
 >>
 >> What else can I test?
TS>  
TS>  I haven't followed the entire thread, but first I would rule out I/O 
TS>  problems like faulty RAID controllers etc. In a particular case I was
TS>  called, although a high-end server in that case, performance was worse
TS>  than on an oldish laptop.
TS>  
TS>  Then there are various tuning/optimizations techniques and settings, 
TS>  which I usually discuss and go through at customer sites. Page size, 
TS>  page buffers, hash slots, increasing RAM usage for the sorting module
TS>  etc. Once the tuning/configuration side is exhausted, SQL tuning is 
TS>  probably the most important thing. At least from my experience.

I  have generated a big database about 50GB in my development computer
having  16GB RAM Win7 64bit and usual SATA drive. I use Firebird 2.5.2
Classic  64bit  and  I  have  the  same  behavior  as on that server I
mentioned initially.
It  seems  to  be  still  problem  even I use 2.5.2 where CORE-3791 is
implemented.

TS>  For sure, I would move away from SuperServer to Classic or SuperClassic
TS>  to get an overall increase in CPU utilization in a multi-user 
TS>  environment.

Yes,  I  know  this.  Usually  I  use  single  database deployment and
therefore is Classic better for me.

TS>  Although e.g. gbak is still bound to a single core.

Of course.

TS>  --
TS>  With regards,
TS>  Thomas Steinmaurer
TS>  http://www.upscene.com/
TS>  
TS>  Professional Tools and Services for Firebird
TS>  FB TraceManager, IB LogManager, Database Health Check, Tuning etc.
TS>  
 >>
 >> <<< 22.01.2014 15:05 - Hugo Eyng "hugoe...@msn.com" >>>
 >>
 >>  
 >> Try changing values for DefaultDbCachePages
 >>
 >> Em 21/01/2014 18:40, Roland Turcan escreveu:
 >>
 >> I have tried to change this parameter (actually =20), but I don't see
 >> any change.
 >>
 >> My server box is:
 >>
 >> Hewlett Packard server
 >> Intel Xeon CPU E31220 @ 3.10GHx
 >> 10GB RAM (8 GB RAM is usable)
 >>
 >> Firebird 2.5.2 64bit SuperServer
 >> single database is being used
 >> where its size is about 80GB
 >>
 >> When I copy any big file to test the performance of disk field then I
 >> can see
 >> that it can force disk performance, but Firebird is still relaxing.
 >>
 >> When I try to backup database using "gbak" no change. CPU core is on
 >> 3-6% and disk
 >> load is about 1MB/s
 >>
 >> What can I check else?
 >>
 >> Thanks in advance.
 >>
 >> TRoland;
 >>
 >>
 >> <<< 21.01.2014 15:17 - Hugo Eyng "hugoe...@msn.com"
 >> >
 >>  
 >> I changed the paramter FileSystemCacheSize = 0 to FileSystemCacheSize =
 >> 20 in the firebird.conf
 >> as suggested in:
 >>
 >> http://dyemanov.blogspot.com.br/2012/03/firebird-vs-windows-file-system-caching.html
 >>
 >> Hugo
 >>
 >> Em 21/01/2014 12:06, Roland Turcan escreveu:
 >>
 >> Yes, I am interested too.
 >>
 >> What was the key to get rid of this problem?
 >>
 >> Thanks in advance.
 >>
 >> <<< 21.01.2014 15:29 - Fabiano - Desenvolvimento SCI
 >> "fabi...@sci10.com.br" >
 >>  
 >>
 >> How you solved your problem?
 >>
 >> *De: *firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
 >> [mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com]
 >> *Em nome de *Hugo Eyng
 >> *Enviada em:* terça-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2014 10:24
 >> *Para: *firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
 >> 
 >> *Assunto:* Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit
 >> performance on Windows 2008 R2
 >>
 >>
 >> Hi Helen.
 >>
 >> Thanks for your answer.
 >>
 >> You are right.
 >>
 >> But the "Windows 64 file cache performance"  was a problem, as said Sean.
 >>
 >> Só 'reserving' 10GB as a RAM DRIVE grant that I would have always
 >> available RAM.
 >>
 >> But now I solved the 'cache performance' and I will not need RAM DRIVE
 >> anymore.
 >>
 >> Even so, the FB performance is not compatible to the hardware used to
 >> run it.
 >> Em 20/01/2014 23:12, Helen Borrie escreveu:
 >>
 >> At 02:01 p.m. 21/01/2014, Hugo Eyng wrote:
 >>
 >>>As Firebird do not use available RAM I created a RAM DRIVE with 10GB and 
 >>>pointed parameter 'TempDirectories' (firebird.conf) to this RAM DRIVE, but 
 >>>FB just uses it rarely in very big 'SELECT'. OK, when FB uses the RAM DRIVE 
 >>>it increases a SELECT speed in more than 80%. I expected

[firebird-support] RE: “Tracking” (debugging) what is hap pening in a Firebird 2.5 database

2014-01-23 Thread ropopa01 
anyone?
 how to monitor triggers into a database? any tools ?

Re: [firebird-support] RE: “Tracking” (debugging) what is hap pening in a Firebird 2.5 database

2014-01-23 Thread Alexey Kovyazin 

Hi,

Create external table and add logging (INSERT INTO MYEXTLOG1...) 
statements into triggers.
Ext. tables work outside transactions scope, and you will see all 
triggers' firings, even those in the frames of roll back transactions.



Regards,
Alexey Kovyazin
IBSurgeon


anyone?

how to monitor triggers into a database? any tools ?

Re: [firebird-support] RE: “Tracking” (debugging) what is hap pening in a Firebird 2.5 database

2014-01-23 Thread Thomas Steinmaurer 
> anyone?
>
> how to monitor triggers into a database? any tools ?

If you want to a tool which generates triggers to keep track of data 
changes, then have a look on IB LogManager:
http://www.upscene.com/products.audit.iblm_main.php

If you want to monitor execution of your own triggers, then FB 
TraceManager via the Trace API might be an option:
http://www.upscene.com/products.fbtm.index.php

If you want to have user-defined logging in your trigger, then follow 
Alexey's approach. With Firebird 2.5 you even don't need to do that with 
external tables, but with a regular table (which is easier 
queried/processed afterwards) in combination with the 2.5 autonomous 
transactions, encapsulating the insert into log table into its own 
dedicated (sub) transaction context.


-- 
With regards,
Thomas Steinmaurer
http://www.upscene.com/

Professional Tools and Services for Firebird
FB TraceManager, IB LogManager, Database Health Check, Tuning etc.

Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

2014-01-23 Thread Michael Weissenbacher 
Hi!
> CristalDiskMark:
>
> Seq 468 MB/s Read161 MB/s Write(Ten times faster than a notebook
> vostro 1510 intel core 2 duo 1.8ghz)
>
Sequential Disk performance is completely irrelevant to a database 
workload which is 99% random I/O. You need to check the random disk 
performance. Make sure your BBWC / FBWC is in good state and you've 
chosen a small stripe size on the RAID set where the database resides.

hth,
Michael




++

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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-support/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-support/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
firebird-support-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
firebird-support-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
firebird-support-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

[firebird-support] Firebird server side reporting

2014-01-23 Thread dixonepperson 
I'm building a web app, backend is Firebird, web architecture is MVC, written 
in C#. 
 

 What are some recommendations for server-side reporting that work well with 
Firebird?
 

 Dixon

Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit performance on Windows 2008 R2

2014-01-23 Thread Hugo Eyng 

I use SuperClassic and seted the DefaultDbCachePages = 2250
The Default value is 75
Than I used a multiple of 75
The amount of memory used by FB service increases a lot and the 
performance increases too


Em 23/01/2014 02:52, Alexey Kovyazin escreveu:


Hi Roland,

>I have tried to change this parameter (actually =20), but I don't see 
any change.


20? It is below all meaningful values.
If you are using SuperServer, set 1, if Classic or SuperClassic, 
set 1024,  and _restart_ Firebird.


>What else can I test?

If you are interested in professional optimization 
(http://ib-aid.com/services/optimization), contact our support.


Regards,
Alexey Kovyazin
www.IBSurgeon.com



AFAIK, the parameter DefaultDbCachePages is intended for newly created
databases as default size of cache pages. It doesn't have effect on 
existing
databases where its own setting is used. Every database can have own 
setting

about count of cache pages.

It seems to be still not solving this problem using by 
FileSystemCacheSize.


What else can I test?

Thanks.

<<< 22.01.2014 15:05 - Hugo Eyng "hugoe...@msn.com" >>>


Try changing values for DefaultDbCachePages

Em 21/01/2014 18:40, Roland Turcan escreveu:

I have tried to change this parameter (actually =20), but I don't see 
any change.


My server box is:

Hewlett Packard server
Intel Xeon CPU E31220 @ 3.10GHx
10GB RAM (8 GB RAM is usable)

Firebird 2.5.2 64bit SuperServer
single database is being used
where its size is about 80GB

When I copy any big file to test the performance of disk field then I 
can see

that it can force disk performance, but Firebird is still relaxing.

When I try to backup database using "gbak" no change. CPU core is on 
3-6% and disk

load is about 1MB/s

What can I check else?

Thanks in advance.

TRoland;


<<< 21.01.2014 15:17 - Hugo Eyng "hugoe...@msn.com" 
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] 
*Em nome de *Hugo Eyng

*Enviada em:* terça-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2014 10:24
*Para: *firebird-support@yahoogroups.com 

*Assunto:* Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit 
performance on Windows 2008 R2



Hi Helen.

Thanks for your answer.

You are right.

But the "Windows 64 file cache performance"  was a problem, as said Sean.

Só 'reserving' 10GB as a RAM DRIVE grant that I would have always 
available RAM.


But now I solved the 'cache performance' and I will not need RAM 
DRIVE anymore.


Even so, the FB performance is not compatible to the hardware used to 
run it.

Em 20/01/2014 23:12, Helen Borrie escreveu:

At 02:01 p.m. 21/01/2014, Hugo Eyng wrote:

>As Firebird do not use available RAM I created a RAM DRIVE with 10GB 
and pointed parameter 'TempDirectories' (firebird.conf) to this RAM 
DRIVE, but FB just uses it rarely in very big 'SELECT'. OK, when FB 
uses the RAM DRIVE it increases a SELECT speed in more than 80%. I 
expected FB could use this for every SELECTS and so improve the 
application.


Fb uses RAM directly for sorts, if enough is available. It only takes 
the sort sets to disk if available RAM is insufficient.


Helen Borrie, Support Consultant, IBPhoenix (Pacific)
Author of "The Firebird Book" and "The Firebird Book Second Edition"
http://www.firebird-books.net
__


--


Atenciosamente,

Hugo Eyng



How you solved your problem?

*De: *firebird-support@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] 
*Em nome de *Hugo Eyng

*Enviada em:* terça-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2014 10:24
*Para: *firebird-support@yahoogroups.com 

*Assunto:* Re: [firebird-support] Very very very slow FB 2.5.2 64bit 
performance on Windows 2008 R2



Hi Helen.

Thanks for your answer.

You are right.

But the "Windows 64 file cache performance"  was a problem, as said Sean.

Só 'reserving' 10GB as a RAM DRIVE grant that I would have always 
available RAM.


But now I solved the 'cache performance' and I will not need RAM 
DRIVE anymore.


Even so, the FB performance is not compatible to the hardware used to 
run it.

Em 20/01/2014 23:12, Helen Borrie escreveu:

At 02:01 p.m. 21/01/2014, Hugo Eyng wrote:

>As Firebird do not use available RAM I created a RAM DRIVE with 10GB 
and pointed parameter 'TempDirectories' (firebird.conf) t

Re: [firebird-support] do fields with foreign key need index

2014-01-23 Thread E. D. Epperson Jr 
Thanks Ann & Sean

Let me recap to make sure I understand.  If I'm essentially correct, no
reply needed.

When you create a primary key on a table that  creates (or is) a unique
index on the field(s)

When you reference that primary key in another table as a foreign key, a
non-unique index is automatically created along with the foreign key
constraints

Finally,  compound indexes will out-perform single indexes when the
compound indexes match the selectivity requirements of the queries

-- 
Dixon Epperson

Re: [firebird-support] Firebird server side reporting

2014-01-23 Thread Helen Borrie 
At 07:16 a.m. 24/01/2014, dixonepper...@yahoo.com wrote:


>I'm building a web app, backend is Firebird, web architecture is MVC, written 
>in C#.
>
>
>What are some recommendations for server-side reporting that work well with 
>Firebird?
>
>Dixon

Use firebird-tools for this type of question.  Please read the list rules at 
http://www.firebirdsql.org/en/mailing-lists/ if you're not clear about it.

^heLen^
(Moderator)

Re: [firebird-support] Compound indexes

2014-01-23 Thread Ann Harrison 
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Leyne, Sean wrote:

>
>
> I remember reading years ago that Firebird would compile multiple indexes
> based on the search requirement and that it was better to do indexes that
> way instead of creating multiple compound indexes.
>

Sean offered these excellent suggestions:

>
>
>  That approach is not true is 100% of cases.  It depends on many
> factors:
>
> -  How many rows are in the table?
>
> -  How what is the selectivity of the columns?
>
> -  Are there common fields/columns (or groups) used in search?
>
>
>
>  You need to test/evaluate the best approach for your requirements.
>

And this example.

>
>
>  In our case, we have a table which has 5-120 millions of rows
> (depending on the client), for which the most common search is by 2 fields
> (Date & Channel).  There could be between 2000 and 8 total rows per
> Date, and there could be between 1 and 40 Channel values (very poor
> selectivity).  But typically there are only 2000 rows per date+channel, so
> creating a Date+Channel (actually Channel+Date for the best index
> compression) yields search performance which is **orders of magnitude**
> better than using separate indexes.  (SELECT * FROM Table WHERE Channel =
> xxx and Date =  on **119 million rows** returns 1160 rows in *
> *1.5secs**)
>

Just to be very clear...  Even using separate indexes, Firebird would read
only the rows that met both criteria.  It would set a lot of bits in a
couple of bitmaps as it read a lot of index pages that the compound index
would avoid. There's a cost to that, for sure.

>
>
>  The engine uses that same index is also used when searches for a
> range of dates (for a single channel) is used (ie. WHERE Channel = xxx and
> Date BETWEEN xxx and ).
>

Right, That index could not be used if the query were WHERE Date = xxx and
Channel between xxx and yyy - but that's not a logical query in Sean's
database.

People who learned database design on other databases tend to create more
indexes than are needed in Firebird.  Those indexes add to the cost of
inserting, updating, and deleting data.  If you find yourself thinking that
you need an index on fields A & B, and B & C, and C & B & A, and B, A, & C,
then you should run some tests and see if you can live with one index on A,
one on B, and one on C.  Remember to include some data changes in the mix.

If your data is never modified or deleted and you can live with the load
time, then add all the compound indexes your heart desires.

Good luck,

Ann

Re: [firebird-support] practice information system

2014-01-23 Thread Marc Hakman 
Hi Helen,

I’ve got some answers.

Am 07.01.2014 um 08:34 schrieb Helen Borrie :

> 
>>> I expressed surprise that the software would have received government 
>>> certification if it was set up wrongly from a security perspective.  Only 
>>> your supplier/developer can go through this with you and explain what (if 
>>> anything) you need to do.
The government certifies only the forms (the P.I.S. developer is not more than 
a printery) and the on-line connection with the health agency, not the database 
safety. However, she gives some good, but sometimes incomplete guidelines.
> 
> At 06:53 p.m. 7/01/2014, Marc Hakman wrote:
>>> 
>> Every client has a pw and different rights: the cabinet. In my view, the 
>> database file with the unchanged default admin account name and pw is the 
>> missing rear wall. Is that correct?
> 
> If the SYSDBA password is 'masterkey' then YES, your assessment is correct.
> 
>> Still untouched: patient chip card.
>> Where can I find info about the possible risks of patients chip cards. In 
>> your books?
> 
> Not in my books.  I'm not even sure what you are talking about.  I suppose it 
> must be some kind of smartcard storing patient data that can be read by a 
> dedicated reader device.
> 
>> How can I read out, wether they do something / nothing with my database file.
> 
> I guess that the authority that issues these cards must have some information 
> available about the data format and the device API, so that people like your 
> software developer can write applications to read from the card and (if 
> supported) write to it.
> 
> I have never heard of a smartcard that could log into a database as SYSDBA, I 
> must confess!  That would be some amazing wee beastie. ()()()()()()()()(^ ^)
> Glad too read that.
>> I don’t like to trust my developer, because he has interest in selling and 
>> therefore in certification; not in the security of my database files (= 
>> patients and financial company files). My assumption is wrong. The 
>> certification (as a printery) and safety are completely different issues. 
>> The developer has a real interest in safety. Although he admits, that the 
>> safety is not very high. He explained: within the database,  the files are 
>> partially written in a binary format and the information is scattered over 
>> many tables. It is almost impossible to find their context. So the patient 
>> files in the cabinet are shredded. Is OK, or not?
> 
> Really?  I thought the primary reason for certification was quality assurance 
> of (only as a printery, see above) which data security is a significant part 
> and customer support is another.  I get the impression that you haven't made 
> contact with the software support people about this chip card issue.
> 
> 
> Helen Borrie, Support Consultant, IBPhoenix (Pacific)
> Author of "The Firebird Book" and "The Firebird Book Second Edition"
> http://www.firebird-books.net
> __ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ++
> 
> 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




++

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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-support/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-support/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
firebird-support-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
firebird-support-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
firebird-support-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/