"One Machine"

The expectation is that the "one" server is doing all the DB activity - and to speed things up it caches lots of stuff ... and is not programmed/designed to have to compete with another Server to control the data.....  I am guessing....

Walter

Walter Matte wrote:

> "One Machine"
>
> The expectation is that the "one" server is doing all the DB activity
> - and to speed things up it caches lots of stuff ... and is not
> programmed/designed to have to compete with another Server to control
> the data.....  I am guessing....
>
> Walter

Hi Walter

My point goes back to Tim's earlier suggestion that each machine should
run a server as a service.
So when all the machines come to the event, connect to the LAN and fire
up, there will be several servers.
But, each server will be defaulting to its own host, so only one server
will access any one instance of the database.

But the plan is now likely to be different and the question is
answered.  

Malcolm

It is said that if something sounds too good to be true, then it
probably is.

But I finally got round to running some tests .. and even I can get
several instances of a test prog on different hosts to connect and mess
with the data through a DBServer.

So Tim's software must be exceptional.   

Malcolm

Malcolm,

<< My point goes back to Tim's earlier suggestion that each machine should run a server as a service. >>

My suggestion was to run *one* EDB Server as a service.

Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

It keeps getting better.  

I assumed that when a user elected to switch from stLocal to stRemote,
I would first have to determine if the edbsrvr was already running.
But, no, a quick RTFM and some tests confirm that I can simply fire-up
the edbsrvr and if there is an instance already running, the new
instance will silently fail (port in use).  So easy.