I'd say that "local file system" versus "remote file system" is really more of a shorthand for the requirement that low-level operations such as locks and reads behave the way that sqlite expects them to behave.
In particular, locks on remote file systems are notorious for poor behavior. If I perform a sequence of operations like - I'm running my database application - I put my operating system to sleep - I remove the "local" drive that has my database - Mount it on another machine and do database operations - Move it back to the original machine - "wake up" the original machine It seems entirely plausible that my database application had its locks "violated", but doesn't get notified of that, so I would say you should do a lot of research before deciding that is a safe sequence. I haven't tested it, so I don't know. That sequence becomes a lot more "plausible" as something that might happen, when talking about media that is easily moved from machine-to-machine, such as external USB drives. -----Original Message----- >> From: Keith Medcalf [mailto:kmedc...@dessus.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 17:06 >> To: SQLite mailing list <sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org> >> Subject: Re: [sqlite] SQLite DB on external USB HD - is it safe? >> ... >> If Windows reports that the filesystem is "local" then it is OK. >> ... _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
