__ __ __ __ _____ _ _ _____ _ _ _ | \/ | \ \ / / | __ \ (_) | | / ____| | | | | | \ / |_ __\ V / | |__) | __ ___ ____ _| |_ ___ | (___ | |__ ___| | | | |\/| | '__|> < | ___/ '__| \ \ / / _` | __/ _ \ \___ \| '_ \ / _ \ | | | | | | |_ / . \ | | | | | |\ V / (_| | || __/ ____) | | | | __/ | | |_| |_|_(_)_/ \_\ |_| |_| |_| \_/ \__,_|\__\___| |_____/|_| |_|\___V 2.1 if you need WebShell for Seo everyday contact me on Telegram Telegram Address : @jackleetFor_More_Tools:
XNET - new local protocol implementation (win32) ------------------------------------------------ Firebird 2.0 has replaced the former (often referred to as IPC or IPServer) implementation of the local transport protocol with a new one, named XNET. It serves exactly the same goal - provide an efficient way to connect to the local server (without a remote node name in the connection string) - but it's implemented differently, in order to address the known issues with the old protocol. Generally speaking, both implementations use shared memory for inter-process communication, but XNET eliminates usage of window messages to deliver attachment requests and it also implements another synchronization logic. Advantages of the XNET protocol over IPServer: - it works with Classic Server - it works for non-interactive services and terminal sessions - it doesn't lock up when using a few connections simultaneously From the performance point of view, they should behave similarly, although XNET is expected to be slightly faster. As for disadvantages, there's only one - implementations are not compatible with each other. It means that your fbclient.dll version should match the version of the used server binaries (fbserver.exe or fb_inet_server.exe), otherwise you won't be able to establish a local connection (a TCP localhost loopback will do the trick, of course).