Menu
▾
▴
firebird-devel
|
[Firebird-devel] Strong request for 1.5: Stopping FB trying to access port 3050 when
server is local
From: Raymond K. <ray...@ch...> - 2003-02-28 13:12:55
|
The firewall stops it, but I want my users to not see the firewall message and I want FB to not attempt to use the network (internet) connection when it starts if the server is on the same machine as the client. -- Raymond Kennington Programming Solutions W2W Team B |
|
From: Phil S. <ph...@sh...> - 2003-02-28 13:40:00
|
On Friday 28 February 2003 12:34, Raymond Kennington wrote: Hi, > The firewall stops it, but I want my users to not see the firewall message > and I want FB to not attempt to use the network (internet) connection when > it starts if the server is on the same machine as the client. Thats a Firewall issue not a FB one. FB needs to bind to a port to accept client connections, and if the Firewall shows a message, it will need to be configured to allow/ignore FB. Phil -- Linux 2.4.4-4GB 11:26am up 45 days, 17:15, 1 user, load average: 0.38, 0.08, 0.03 |
|
From: Raymond K. <ray...@ch...> - 2003-02-28 21:34:03
|
Phil Shrimpton wrote: > > On Friday 28 February 2003 12:34, Raymond Kennington wrote: > > Hi, > > > The firewall stops it, but I want my users to not see the firewall message > > and I want FB to not attempt to use the network (internet) connection when > > it starts if the server is on the same machine as the client. > > Thats a Firewall issue not a FB one. FB needs to bind to a port to accept > client connections, and if the Firewall shows a message, it will need to be > configured to allow/ignore FB. > > Phil FB has no need to access the network connection when the server and the client are on the same m/c, nor any other network for that matter. Surely it doesn't require TCP/IP installed to run locally? Did Interbase 5? I think not, for TCP/IP was not installed, only NetBEUI. I've never had to configure a port. What happens if no network files at all are installed on a standalone m/c? Will FB still work? If so, then there is no need to attempt a connection, and I really do want my users to be able to not worry about others getting access to their database if they don't have a firewall installed that warns them. Meanwhile, I've configured the firewall to not allow FB to be a server on my own m/c. -- Raymond Kennington Programming Solutions W2W Team B |
|
From: Phil S. <ph...@sh...> - 2003-02-28 23:38:03
|
On Friday 28 February 2003 21:29, Raymond Kennington wrote: Hi, > > Thats a Firewall issue not a FB one. FB needs to bind to a port to > > accept client connections, and if the Firewall shows a message, it will > > need to be configured to allow/ignore FB. > > FB has no need to access the network connection when the server and the > client are on the same m/c, nor any other network for that matter. Depends if you talking about the server or client. And depends on your connection string. If you use <server>:<path> to connect, it uses TCP/IP, and for that to work, the server needs to be listening on a port > Surely it doesn't require TCP/IP installed to run locally? If you use the memory mapped file way of connecting(e.g. just a path name), then, no it does not need TCP/IP, but the server listens on a TCP/IP port anyway. Although it seems this can be turned off in current betas > Did Interbase 5? Yes. At least there was no setting to turn it off. > I think not, for TCP/IP was not installed, only NetBEUI. I've never had to > configure a port. The install does this for you. > What happens if no network files at all are installed on a standalone m/c? > Will FB still work? No, and neither will IB (not counting the current beta) > I really do want my users to be able to not worry about others getting > access to their database if they don't have a firewall installed that warns > them. If they have a decent firewall, only ports they explicity allow should be exposed to the 'outside'. If they have not got a decent firewall, there is more to worry about than people accessing a FB server <g> > Meanwhile, I've configured the firewall to not allow FB to be a server on > my own m/c. FB has to run as as server (so clients can connection), so I guess you have closed the external port? (why was it open in the first place?) Phil -- Linux 2.4.4-4GB 9:22pm up 46 days, 3:11, 1 user, load average: 0.08, 0.26, 0.18 |
|
From: Helen B. <he...@tp...> - 2003-02-28 13:40:26
|
At 11:04 PM 28/02/2003 +1030, Raymond Kennington wrote: >The firewall stops it, but I want my users to not see the firewall message >and I >want FB to not attempt to use the network (internet) connection when it starts >if the server is on the same machine as the client. All you have to do is disable auto-dialup. It's a network setup issue, not a Firebird one. Helen |
|
From: Mike N. <ta...@al...> - 2003-02-28 15:59:40
|
Helen Borrie wrote: > At 11:04 PM 28/02/2003 +1030, Raymond Kennington wrote: > >The firewall stops it, but I want my users to not see the firewall message > >and I > >want FB to not attempt to use the network (internet) connection when it starts > >if the server is on the same machine as the client. > > All you have to do is disable auto-dialup. It's a network setup issue, not > a Firebird one. I'm not sure - what about machines with multiple NIC's or multiple IP's/NIC? Maybe we are missing a setting or two: - What IP(s) to bind (or not bind) to - could be used to limit access to localhost. - The option to not use TCP at all. I think the option to tell what IP's to use/not use could be especially useful. /Mike |
|
From: Roberto D. P. <ro...@de...> - 2003-02-28 16:30:46
|
does the binary distribution of firebird is compiled with visual studio 6 with all optimizations? I mean that from a generic code target platform 386 and dword align, a code targeted for P6 core and 64bit align can be atleast 20% faster on newest cpu... So I need to recompile myself the sources, or firebird exe's come compiled with max optimizations? Thanks, and sorry for my ... ugly english! Regards, Roberto. |
|
From: Roberto D. P. <ro...@de...> - 2003-02-28 18:19:28
|
sorry again me..... nobody answer my emails :'( perhaps firebird has solved the interbase bug of the 10,000 cache pages? It's possible address 512MB of ram for the cache of FB without lose performances? thanks thanks thanks Robi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberto Della Pasqua" <ro...@de...> To: <fir...@li...> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 5:28 PM Subject: [Firebird-devel] hi, a curiosity please > does the binary distribution of firebird is compiled with visual studio 6 > with all optimizations? > > I mean that from a generic code target platform 386 and dword align, a code > targeted for P6 core and 64bit align can be atleast 20% faster on newest > cpu... > > So I need to recompile myself the sources, or firebird exe's come compiled > with max optimizations? > > Thanks, and sorry for my ... ugly english! > > Regards, > Roberto. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Firebird-devel mailing list > Fir...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel > |
|
From: Nickolay S. <sk...@bs...> - 2003-02-28 18:30:39
|
> sorry again me..... nobody answer my emails :'( > perhaps firebird has solved the interbase bug of the 10,000 cache pages? AFAIU, No. > It's possible address 512MB of ram for the cache of FB without lose > performances? No. But in case you use classic server general rules is - the smaller cache you have the faster engine works. Nickolay Samofatov |
|
From: Roberto D. P. <ro...@de...> - 2003-02-28 19:09:10
|
Hi, > > perhaps firebird has solved the interbase bug of the 10,000 cache pages? > > AFAIU, No. the 1.5 version too? :-\ IMHO the cache manager of original interbase it's a big bottleneck! I hope that this cache manager will be rewritten following modern algorithms ;) Tnx !!! |
|
From: <me...@in...> - 2003-02-28 20:22:24
|
I have multiple network interfaces. When I connect my Firebird server at 127.0.0.1, it makes a secondary connection using one of my LAN interfaces (for event notification?). It works fine if the LAN interface is not firewalled, but lot of people use firewalls. There is no such problem with Interbase 6.0, only Firebird does this. Regards - Balazs Farkas - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Nordell" <ta...@al...> To: <fir...@li...> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:54 PM Subject: Re: [Firebird-devel] Strong request for 1.5: Stopping FB trying to access port 3050 when server is local > Helen Borrie wrote: > > > At 11:04 PM 28/02/2003 +1030, Raymond Kennington wrote: > > >The firewall stops it, but I want my users to not see the firewall > message > > >and I > > >want FB to not attempt to use the network (internet) connection when it > starts > > >if the server is on the same machine as the client. > > > > All you have to do is disable auto-dialup. It's a network setup issue, > not > > a Firebird one. > > I'm not sure - what about machines with multiple NIC's or multiple IP's/NIC? > Maybe we are missing a setting or two: > - What IP(s) to bind (or not bind) to - could be used to limit access to > localhost. > - The option to not use TCP at all. > > > I think the option to tell what IP's to use/not use could be especially > useful. > > > /Mike |
|
From: Dmitry Y. <di...@us...> - 2003-02-28 16:29:47
|
"Mike Nordell" wrote: > > I'm not sure - what about machines with multiple NIC's or multiple > IP's/NIC? Maybe we are missing a setting or two: > - What IP(s) to bind (or not bind) to - could be used to limit access > to localhost. It will also solve some current problems (server hangup/crash) with event processing on machines with multiple NICs. > - The option to not use TCP at all. It could be done via the existing options. E.g. if TCP port name is empty in the config file, then TCP is disabled. The same is true for NetBEUI and IPC. > I think the option to tell what IP's to use/not use could be > especially useful. 100% agree. Dmitry |
|
From: Jerome B. <jer...@no...> - 2003-02-28 19:19:58
|
""Dmitry Yemanov"" <di...@us...> a écrit dans le message de news: b3nlcp$iog$1...@ne...... > ... > It could be done via the existing options. E.g. if TCP port name is empty in > the config file, then TCP is disabled. The same is true for NetBEUI and IPC. > Does this mean that FB can be deployed on a PC without the TCP/IP stack installed and still serve "local protocol" requests ? Thanks. -- Jerome |
|
From: Helen B. <he...@tp...> - 2003-02-28 22:55:13
|
At 07:29 PM 28/02/2003 +0300, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: >"Mike Nordell" wrote: > > > > I'm not sure - what about machines with multiple NIC's or multiple > > IP's/NIC? Maybe we are missing a setting or two: > > - What IP(s) to bind (or not bind) to - could be used to limit access > > to localhost. > >It will also solve some current problems (server hangup/crash) with event >processing on machines with multiple NICs. > > > - The option to not use TCP at all. > >It could be done via the existing options. E.g. if TCP port name is empty in >the config file, then TCP is disabled. The same is true for NetBEUI and IPC. > > > I think the option to tell what IP's to use/not use could be > > especially useful. > >100% agree. But Windows already provides for this, through the bindings configuration. The problems arise because people typically install Windows with their modem installed with all the defaults, and then add other things like multi NIC cards later. The gateway bindings are then in order of installation, so typically the dial-out gateway is at the top. If RAS Autodial is set true, it goes through the gateways in top-to-bottom order. If you disable RAS Autodial, the connection goes straight through to the specified IP address. The various config tools (and also Firewall config tools) write no-autodial entries to the Registry key HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\RAS Autodial\Control Ideally the config programs should be used to get the entries in there, but you can add entries manually using the regedt.exe tool (not regedit.exe), which provides a stringlist editor. I suppose that the Firebird windows config utility could provide a custom interface to it. Microsoft doesn't make it obvious or easy for users to alter the gateway order *and* the actual step-by-step "how-to" varies according to the version of Windows. There is a command-line utility rasautou.exe in WinNT that displays the network card bindings in order, but, on Win2K at least, it AVs after showing the binding for the first card. I don't know about XP. It's not available on 95/98 at all. It can be a nightmare to document the "one or more things" that you have to do to get this configuration right for "any" Windows version (it took three pages in the Troubleshooting section of the Using Firebird manual and I don't doubt that it is already out-of-date for WinXP). The Win2K helpfile entry on binding order hasn't even been updated to reflect the Win2K tools interface changes. It's not something that could be done generically from the client library without a lot of version-conditional code and/or ini files, since the IP address bindings are peculiar to the local setup, not just to the network, but to each network client setup, and would get stuffed up each time a subsequent change were made. I'm in no way saying "don't do it", but I don't think we are talking about a trivial change to the dll. Helen |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X