Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fforde" data-source="post: 530386" data-attributes="member: 52082">You two are misinformed, as disaster123 pointed out, SQLite handles mulitple connects just fine.Most likely the problem in 95% of cases isn't even that your databases are becoming &quot;corrupted&quot; at least not in the sense you are thinking. The database files are still valid SQLite databases. The problem is the data in the database gets into an invalid state or applications get out of sync with the database when multiple changes from multiple locations are made in series. For example say two instances of Moving Pictures are running on two machines, one machine is a sleep. You delete a movie from your network share and the first&nbsp; instance of Moving Pictures removes the entry from the database. You wake up your second system, it sees the file is gone and thinks the file is still in the database due to cached information in memory. It tries to delete the record, and fails. Hopefully it will fail gracefully and not crash the program, but the problem is this is not a scenario that Moving Pictures was designed for so in situations like this (and others like it) often there is not logic to deal with these sorts of problems. I hope that makes sense to you. Basically the problem is not the database engine, it is how the plugins interact with the database. The &quot;corruption&quot; people talk about does not refer to a broken database file, it refers to bad data in the database or applications out of sync with it.Yes I think that is the best solution. A client/server setup where the server acts as an abstraction layer to the database. This guarantees there is open piece of logic that is in charge of maintaining database integrity. This does not solve all problems, but it is by far the cleanest solution in my opinion. Again though this has nothing to do with implementing the database via MS SQL Server. With this kind of setup, a more &quot;robust&quot; database system brings virtually zero benefits, consumes far more system resources, and potentially places a higher burden on the user maintenance of their setup.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fforde, post: 530386, member: 52082"] You two are misinformed, as disaster123 pointed out, SQLite handles mulitple connects just fine. Most likely the problem in 95% of cases isn't even that your databases are becoming "corrupted" at least not in the sense you are thinking. The database files are still valid SQLite databases. The problem is the [I]data in the database[/I] gets into an invalid state or applications get out of sync with the database when multiple changes from multiple locations are made in series. For example say two instances of Moving Pictures are running on two machines, one machine is a sleep. You delete a movie from your network share and the first instance of Moving Pictures removes the entry from the database. You wake up your second system, it sees the file is gone and thinks the file is still in the database due to cached information in memory. It tries to delete the record, and fails. Hopefully it will fail gracefully and not crash the program, but the problem is this is not a scenario that Moving Pictures was designed for so in situations like this (and others like it) often there is not logic to deal with these sorts of problems. I hope that makes sense to you. Basically the problem is not the database engine, it is how the plugins interact with the database. The "corruption" people talk about does not refer to a broken database file, it refers to bad data in the database or applications out of sync with it. Yes I think that is the best solution. A client/server setup where the server acts as an abstraction layer to the database. This guarantees there is open piece of logic that is in charge of maintaining database integrity. This does not solve all problems, but it is by far the cleanest solution in my opinion. Again though this has nothing to do with implementing the database via MS SQL Server. With this kind of setup, a more "robust" database system brings virtually zero benefits, consumes far more system resources, and potentially places a higher burden on the user maintenance of their setup. [/QUOTE]

Verification