AW: AW: AW: AW: [firebird-support] Re: Memory usage excess / leak in FBServer 2.5.4
>> Please, verify it using recent snapshot build > >I installed on my dev machine and running for little more than 1 hour now. >The fix seems to be work. > >I will install today afternoon/evening, or tomorrow morning on the production >system. The production system is running till yesterday 14h00 (UTC+2) with no increase in memory consumption. Problem solved. Well done. Thanks a lot. -- Joja
RE: [firebird-support] Re: Firebird 2.5.4 - CentOS - mon$remote_address 0.0.0.0
Hello , So Dmitry suggested it , we have disabled IPV6 on our server CentOS 7 (Firebird 2.5.4 Classic server (I forgot to mention it in my first mail)). By following the centos FAQ : http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/CentOS7#head-8984faf811faccca74c7bcdd74de7467f2fcd8ee Rebooting the server. But even after this modification the mon$remote_address is still giving 0.0.0.0 Any ideas are welcome. Marianne De : firebird-support@yahoogroups.com [mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] Envoyé : lundi 8 juin 2015 12:47 À : firebird-support@yahoogroups.com Objet : [firebird-support] Re: Firebird 2.5.4 - CentOS - mon$remote_address 0.0.0.0 08.06.2015 10:02, Marianne Castel wrote: > > We were working with Firebird 2.5.2 on Debian . At that time, in the > monitoring table MON$ATTACHEMENTS I could see the IP address of the > client connected to a database. > > Now our administrators have decided to work with CentOS and the last > available packages thus Firebird 2.5.4, and now in the databases on > that server in the table MON$ATTACHEMENTS table the field > mon$remote_address always contains : 0.0.0.0 > > May be that the server is different too (network connection?) … > > Any idea why the IP address is no more reported ? How could we have the > IP address again in the monitoring table ? Interesting. One possible explanation can be found here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17220006/in-what-conditions-getpeername-returns-ipport-0-0-0-00 Firebird 2.x does not support IPv6 and always listens on a AF_INET (i.e. v4) socket, but maybe it could be related somehow. Have you tried to disable IPv6 on the new server box? Dmitry
Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [firebird-support] Re: Memory usage excess / leak in FBServer 2.5.4
---In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, wrote : > > The production system is running till yesterday 14h00 (UTC+2) with no > increase in memory consumption. > Problem solved. Well done. Thanks a lot. Thank you ! Vlad
[firebird-support] Re: Inssuficient rights for operation....
Hello. I used Firebird 1.5.6 on server on WIN7, a database with a role with full rights, and a user defined in ROLE, USER. I have a problem. In the network with a application, on different client station, login with the USER, all functions work OK. From server or another WIN7 station, with USER login, a have one error, with insufficient sql rights for operation, no permission to read/select acces to TABLE. All different functions work OK. ROLE with GRANTS in all tables. The solution from win7 is to give rights on USER for table CONFIG_BALANTA, the rights from the ROLE give this error WHY THE DIFFERENT functionality? Same user, same rights on database.
Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [firebird-support] Re: Memory usage excess / leak in FBServer 2.5.4
> > > Thank you ! > > Vlad > > > Vlad, does this issue affect classic and superclassic?
Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [firebird-support] Re: Memory usage excess / leak in FBServer 2.5.4
See above Em 09/06/2015 06:41, "Jesus Garcia jeg...@gmail.com [firebird-support]" < firebird-support@yahoogroups.com> escreveu: > > > >> Thank you ! >> >> Vlad >> >> >> Vlad, does this issue affect classic and superclassic? > >
Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [firebird-support] Re: Memory usage excess / leak in FBServer 2.5.4
>> >> >> Thank you ! >> >> Vlad >> >> >> Vlad, does this issue affect classic and superclassic? According to one of Vlad's previous message, only SuperServer. -- 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] Re: Inssuficient rights for operation....
>Hello. I used Firebird 1.5.6 on server on WIN7, a database with a role with >full rights, and a user defined in ROLE, USER. >I have a problem. In the network with a application, on different client >station, login with the USER, all functions work OK. >From server or another WIN7 station, with USER login, a have one error, with >insufficient sql rights for operation, no permission to read/select acces to >TABLE. >All different functions work OK. ROLE with GRANTS in all tables. >The solution from win7 is to give rights on USER for table CONFIG_BALANTA, the >rights from the ROLE give this error >WHY THE DIFFERENT functionality? Same user, same rights on database. You may well know all I'm writing here, just thought I should point it out if it happened to be a simple misunderstanding. It does not matter from where you log in. What does matter, is username (obviously) and that you connect using the correct role. Let's say I'm a member of two separate roles: DB_READ and DB_WRITE which have the obvious rights to a table that I have no access to myself. If I connect to the database specifying DB_WRITE as the role, I can do whatever I want, if I use DB_READ when connecting, then I can read, but not write data and if I do not specify any role when connecting, then I cannot do anything (not even read) unless rights have been granted me as a user rather than any role I'm a member of. HTH, Set
[firebird-support] Re: Why table of type "key-value" takes so much space on disk?
Really no answers apart from automatic spam message? ;-) Please, help me to understand this...:)
[firebird-support] Re: Why table of type "key-value" takes so much space on disk?
05.06.2015 08:55, brucedickin...@wp.pl wrote: > > As you can see DETAILS_DATA takes 5 times more of space. I was > completely surprised by this result, after all I am not wasting space > for 50+ columns. Could you explain me this phenomenon? How long are actual strings inside PARAM_VALUE? It's worth looking at the gstat -r output and compare the average record size in both cases. With the former (DETAILS_DATA) approach, the table is very narrow. Storage overhead (record header size, 13 bytes) is nearly the same as the data itself (perhaps even more, considering the data compression). It could explain the wasted space. Dmitry
Re: [firebird-support] Re: Firebird 2.5.4 - CentOS - mon$remote_address 0.0.0.0
FYI - We are running CentOS 6.5 with Firebird 2.5.4 SuperClassic and we are correctly getting the IP addresses in the monitoring tables. -steve On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Marianne Castel - Titelive caste...@titelive.be [firebird-support] wrote: > > > Hello , > > > > So Dmitry suggested it , we have disabled IPV6 on our server CentOS 7 > (Firebird 2.5.4 Classic server (I forgot to mention it in my first mail)). > > By following the centos FAQ : > http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/CentOS7#head-8984faf811faccca74c7bcdd74de7467f2fcd8ee > > Rebooting the server. > > But even after this modification the mon$remote_address is still giving > 0.0.0.0 > > > > Any ideas are welcome. > > > > Marianne > > > > *De :* firebird-support@yahoogroups.com [mailto: > firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] > *Envoyé :* lundi 8 juin 2015 12:47 > *À :* firebird-support@yahoogroups.com > *Objet :* [firebird-support] Re: Firebird 2.5.4 - CentOS - > mon$remote_address 0.0.0.0 > > > > > > 08.06.2015 10:02, Marianne Castel wrote: > > > > We were working with Firebird 2.5.2 on Debian . At that time, in the > > monitoring table MON$ATTACHEMENTS I could see the IP address of the > > client connected to a database. > > > > Now our administrators have decided to work with CentOS and the last > > available packages thus Firebird 2.5.4, and now in the databases on > > that server in the table MON$ATTACHEMENTS table the field > > mon$remote_address always contains : 0.0.0.0 > > > > May be that the server is different too (network connection?) … > > > > Any idea why the IP address is no more reported ? How could we have the > > IP address again in the monitoring table ? > > Interesting. One possible explanation can be found here: > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17220006/in-what-conditions-getpeername-returns-ipport-0-0-0-00 > > Firebird 2.x does not support IPv6 and always listens on a AF_INET (i.e. > v4) socket, but maybe it could be related somehow. Have you tried to > disable IPv6 on the new server box? > > Dmitry > > >
[firebird-support] Re: Memory usage excess / leak in FBServer 2.5.4
I must give a big thanks to Vlad. I think all firebird users must too. Regards, Tjioe Hian Pin
Re: [firebird-support] Re: Firebird 2.5.4 - CentOS - mon$remote_address 0.0.0.0
> Hello , > > So Dmitry suggested it , we have disabled IPV6 on our server CentOS 7 > (Firebird > 2.5.4 Classic server (I forgot to mention it in my first mail)). > By following the centos FAQ : > http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/CentOS7#head-8984faf811faccca74c7bcdd74de7467f2fcd8ee > Rebooting the server. > But even after this modification the mon$remote_address is still giving > 0.0.0.0 > > Any ideas are welcome. Is this a real remote connection from a remote client or an attachment locally on the server? -- With regards, Thomas Steinmaurer http://www.upscene.com Professional Tools and Services for Firebird FB TraceManager, IB LogManager, Database Health Check, Tuning etc. > Marianne > > De : firebird-support@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] > Envoyé : lundi 8 juin 2015 12:47 > À : firebird-support@yahoogroups.com > Objet : [firebird-support] Re: Firebird 2.5.4 - CentOS - mon$remote_address > 0.0.0.0 > > > > 08.06.2015 10:02, Marianne Castel wrote: >> >> We were working with Firebird 2.5.2 on Debian . At that time, in the >> monitoring table MON$ATTACHEMENTS I could see the IP address of the >> client connected to a database. >> >> Now our administrators have decided to work with CentOS and the last >> available packages thus Firebird 2.5.4, and now in the databases on >> that server in the table MON$ATTACHEMENTS table the field >> mon$remote_address always contains : 0.0.0.0 >> >> May be that the server is different too (network connection?) … >> >> Any idea why the IP address is no more reported ? How could we have the >> IP address again in the monitoring table ? > > Interesting. One possible explanation can be found here: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17220006/in-what-conditions-getpeername-returns-ipport-0-0-0-00 > > Firebird 2.x does not support IPv6 and always listens on a AF_INET (i.e. > v4) socket, but maybe it could be related somehow. Have you tried to > disable IPv6 on the new server box? > > Dmitry > >
Re: [firebird-support] Re: Inssuficient rights for operation....
> Hello. I used Firebird 1.5.6 on server on WIN7, a database with a role with > full rights, and a user defined in ROLE, USER. > I have a problem. In the network with a application, on different client > station, login with the USER, all functions work OK. > > From server or another WIN7 station, with USER login, a have one error, with > insufficient sql rights for operation, no permission to read/select acces to > TABLE. All different functions work OK. ROLE with GRANTS in all tables. > > The solution from win7 is to give rights on USER for table CONFIG_BALANTA, the > rights from the ROLE give this error > > > WHY THE DIFFERENT functionality? Same user, same rights on database. Is the user is providing the role name at connect time? -- With regards, Thomas Steinmaurer http://www.upscene.com Professional Tools and Services for Firebird FB TraceManager, IB LogManager, Database Health Check, Tuning etc.
