Hi Christine, Successful restore does *not* mean your original database is ok.
It just means the backup contains consistent data, which (I believe) means it
did not touch any corrupt pages. I assume it could be 'truncated just the right
way' and remain valid, but I'd love to see it actually
Hi Neil,
> We are explicitly starting and committing our own transactions rather than
> relying on any auto-commit behaviour.
>
> We are running Classic (sorry I should have told you that already).
>
> I'll get our devs to checkout the MON$ tables and see what additional info
> can be gleaned
Dear Vlad,
Thanks for your respond.
1. Yes I have few different DB. I still wondering if its corrupt or not.
Because now I can backup restore with no errors. But sometimes my automatic
backup is not successfully.
2. I use 64-bit Centos
Linux 2.6.32-573.7.1.el6.x86_64
> Michael,
>
>> I have a testserver currently running both Firebird 2.1 and 2.5.
>> I need this to support and test various situations with different firebird
>> versions.
>>
>> Now I would like to install Firebird 3.0 manually as well, so I can have 2.1,
>> 2.5 and 3.0 on the same server.
>>
Michael,
> I have a testserver currently running both Firebird 2.1 and 2.5.
> I need this to support and test various situations with different firebird
> versions.
>
> Now I would like to install Firebird 3.0 manually as well, so I can have 2.1,
> 2.5 and 3.0 on the same server.
> 2.1 listens
On 2016-04-20 8:29, michael.vilhelm...@microcom.dk [firebird-support]
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have a testserver currently running both Firebird 2.1 and 2.5.
> I need this to support and test various situations with different
> firebird versions.
>
> Now I would like to install Firebird 3.0 manually as
Hi
I have a testserver currently running both Firebird 2.1 and 2.5.
I need this to support and test various situations with different firebird
versions.
Now I would like to install Firebird 3.0 manually as well, so I can have 2.1,
2.5 and 3.0 on the same server.
2.1 listens on port 3050, 2.5
>>I was not complaining about IBX nor about FB. I was just asking.
>>Embarcadero / Idera stopped developing IBX, they now support FireDAC
>>components, this is why I asked.
>>By now, replacing FB 2.5.5 with 3.0 on my test machine seems to be ok.
>>Tiberiu._,_.___
Boolean
I was not complaining about IBX nor about FB. I was just asking.
Embarcadero / Idera stopped developing IBX, they now support FireDAC
components, this is why I asked.
By now, replacing FB 2.5.5 with 3.0 on my test machine seems to be ok.
Tiberiu
