Re: Protocol Types
Ian Logan wrote: > Hi All > > Can anyone tell me the difference between olsoctcp and onsoctcp? I've > searched the manuals but there is no info on olsoctcp. None. The 'ol' suffix is the old one and was replaced with the 'on' suffix. The 'ol' suffix still works for backward compatibility. My best guess is that the 'ol' suffix comes from OnLine as you didn't need a network entry even for a network connection in the Turbo and early OnLine products, so the first prefix was based on the engine name even though the executables were suffixed with 'tb'. Then when they changed the executable's suffix to 'on', having realised that the product was no longer called Turbo, I guess they thought it prudent to change the network protocol suffix as well. Not sure when they'll change it to 'ds' though. ;-) ...But that's just my guess. I'm sure Jonathan can give you the full hysterical raisins. > We are using 9.21 on Windows 2K. Life is never easy is it! :-) Cheers, -- Mark. +----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Mark D. Stock mailto:mdstock@MydasSolutions.com |//////// /| | Mydas Solutions Ltd http://MydasSolutions.com |///// / //| | +-----------------------------------+//// / ///| | |We value your comments, which have |/// / ////| | |been recorded and automatically |// / /////| | |emailed back to us for our records.|/ ////////| +----------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+ sending to informix-list
Mark D. Stock wrote: > Ian Logan wrote: >>Can anyone tell me the difference between olsoctcp and onsoctcp? I've >>searched the manuals but there is no info on olsoctcp. The status of the bit 1 of the second byte (counting bit 0, bit 1, etc, but first byte, second byte, etc). It's 0 for 'olsoctcp' and 1 for 'onsoctcp'. It matters dreadfully - there are squads of DBAs who won't talk to you if you use onsoctcp instead of olsoctcp, and other squads who won't talk to you if you use olsoctcp instead of onsoctcp (and yet other squads who won't talk to you unless you use oltlitcp or ontlitcp, but I digress). There's only one right way to do it, and the world is divided 50-50 on which way it is :-) > None. The 'ol' suffix is the old one and was replaced with the 'on' > suffix. The 'ol' suffix still works for backward compatibility. IIRC, they were introduced at the same time (version 5.00). Prior to that, the protocols were specified with just six characters (soctcp) and no indication of whether it was OnLine or SE on the far end. > My best guess is that the 'ol' suffix comes from OnLine as you didn't > need a network entry even for a network connection in the Turbo and > early OnLine products, so the first prefix was based on the engine name > even though the executables were suffixed with 'tb'. Then when they > changed the executable's suffix to 'on', having realised that the > product was no longer called Turbo, I guess they thought it prudent to > change the network protocol suffix as well. Not sure when they'll change > it to 'ds' though. ;-) It's a long time ago - 1990 for OnLine 5.00 (31 Dec 1990). I think both 'ol' and 'on' come from OnLine. I don't recall all the ins and outs, but certainly even the older (x.10.03, 4.00, 4.1x) versions of the products could use an sqlhosts file, but equally, they didn't have to all the time because it assumed that a server name (meaning DBMS instance) was the same as the host (server) name (meaning machine name). And it would connect correctly using the default service (1526/tcp) by default, etc. But that's based on flaky memory. I do have a x.10.03/4.00 I-Net/I-Star Guide in the office, but I'm not there at the moment. > ...But that's just my guess. I'm sure Jonathan can give you the full > hysterical raisins. Well, I don't know about the full works, but there's some extra info above. >>We are using 9.21 on Windows 2K. Commiserations. Time to upgrade. -- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/