|
Home > Archive > Programming with dBASE > March 2006 > Network performance
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Network performance
|
|
|
| I test my DEO app on a P3 500 mhz 256mb memory workstation running on a 100mbps network with 2 users. The menu appears in <10 seconds with the client's tables installed on the server.
My client runs it on a P4 2.8 ghz 512 mb memory workstation on a 100 mbps network with 7 users. The menu appears in 3 minutes. This is with anti-virus checking turned off, and even if only 2 users are logged on to the app.
Cannot figure why. Any ideas on what I can do to speed up the opening of the app on client?s network?
Anyone know how much memory on the server is recommended? It is one thing I did not check with them on yet. Are there settings on a router that need optimized (mine did not require anything like that to get the 10 second load time)?
I have similar installations with the same very slow load time problem. I feel like I must be missing something, but the installations of bde and tables are the same on my network as theirs. Only difference I can tell is they have more users. But if on
ly 2 users are actually logged in to the app, should'nt they get the same performance I get?
Thanks for any and all ideas,
Rick
| |
| *Lysander* 2006-03-27, 3:23 am |
| Rick schrieb:
> Anyone know how much memory on the server is recommended? It is one thing I did not check with them on yet. Are there settings on a router that need optimized (mine did not require anything like that to get the 10 second load time)?
if this network is running at least one station with XP SP2 and/or
Server2003 SP1 then RAM is not your problem.
Turn off DEO, and most likely it will be faster again.
There have been "close-to-fanatic" posts here, stating that DEO is
no problem. But there are as many cases where the application was
running fast again after turning DEO off.
ciao,
André
| |
| Mark Ziburis 2006-03-27, 9:24 am |
| Are they running the same operating system as you (Some are slower than
others)?
Are they running the app from the server or from the workstation? (It is
always slower from the server - so I place the tables on the server, but
the app on the workstations).
Are they peer to peer or really networked via some system (like MS or
Novell)? {Peer to peer is slower with each additional workstation added).
If you move the tables to the workstation and define the database to
find them there, does it speed up things?
Is their server running out of space (this will cause traffic issues)?
I have also found that on a server-based system, the server can be have
traffic issues periodically that affect my apps, but are not caused by
my apps.
Just ideas to think about.
Mark Ziburis
| |
|
| André,
When you say turn off DEO, can I get away with just copying all deo objects (over 11 mb) to each workstation, or would I need to compile everything into one giant exe and run it from the workstation?
I'm checking on whether they are running their server as peer to peer or dedicated server. I have a suspicion that using peer to peer and deo might be the problem. Tho that is what I do on my test equipment and I have no problem.
When the app opens, it only manages a couple tables and they have no more than 10 records in each. So I know this is not a data issue that would be solved moving to client server. It must have something to do with the deo objects getting across the netw
ork, as you suggest.
Very aggravating that I cannot duplicate the problem, but that a number of clients are reporting this very slow response on opening the app., as well as in other areas of the app.
Thanks,
Rick
*Lysander* Wrote:
> Rick schrieb:
>
>
> if this network is running at least one station with XP SP2 and/or
> Server2003 SP1 then RAM is not your problem.
>
> Turn off DEO, and most likely it will be faster again.
>
> There have been "close-to-fanatic" posts here, stating that DEO is
> no problem. But there are as many cases where the application was
> running fast again after turning DEO off.
>
> ciao,
> André
| |
|
| Mark,
> Are they running the same operating system as you (Some are slower than
> others)?
>
Yes, all XP on mine and theirs. I have tried SP1 and SP2
> Is their server running out of space (this will cause ton my test workstation, and no significant slow down on either. They are using SP2.
> Are they running the app from the server or from the workstation? (It is
> always slower from the server - so I place the tables on the server, but
> the app on the workstations).
>
A small EXE on each workstation (with the BDE), with deo objects on the server with the data.
> Are they peer to peer or really networked via some system (like MS or
> Novell)? {Peer to peer is slower with each additional workstation added).
>
Am investigating this further now, but I believe they are peer to peer. My testing is also peer to peer. I would think they should only see a slow down if they actually have multiple users logged in, but they get this same slow loading of the app if onl
y one person logged in to the network.
> If you move the tables to the workstation and define the database to
> find them there, does it speed up things?
>
The opening of the app loads only 2 very small tables, so I would not think the opening should be affected by table location. I could try to test this, tho it would be difficult to do on their site since they must use the app every day.
> Is their server running out of space (this will cause traffic issues)?
>
Will have to check on that.
> I have also found that on a server-based system, the server can be have
> traffic issues periodically that affect my apps, but are not caused by
> my apps.
>
Yes, I thought about that. Will have to find out more specifics from them.
> Just ideas to think about.
>
Thanks Mark. Am desperate for some ideas as I do not want the app to have a bad rep as too slow.
Rick
| |
| *Lysander* 2006-03-27, 11:24 am |
| Rick schrieb:
> When you say turn off DEO, can I get away with just copying all deo objects (over 11 mb) to each workstation, or would I need to compile everything into one giant exe and run it from the workstation?
Best solution is to make a full install of the application on each
workstation. But that is only _my_ recommendation while others don't
see the problem.
> Very aggravating that I cannot duplicate the problem, but that a number of clients are reporting this very slow response on opening the app., as well as in other areas of the app.
Definitely, MS has brought up some security enhancements, and some
older applications and programming languages could not follow the
necessary details.
You don't have problems while your customer has.
But with all those small changes, fixes, patches etc... you can
never be too sure that your clients have indeed the same system as
you have.
I saw cases, when DEP was no problem.
Another machine, same set of system, fixes and patches... sloooooow.
Just something was configured differently by the admin, and DEP will
kill you.
We are still lucky that there _is_ a high chance to get rid off the
problem by turning away from DEO. Just try it and you will see if
this is a solution or not. If not, I am clueless. At least, if DEP
is the culprit in your case, turning off DEO will help.
(see MS knowledgebase on ALL enhancements of SP 2, as well as on DEP
Data execution prevention).
| |
| Christopher F. Neumann 2006-03-27, 11:24 am |
| Besides DEP, you need to look at AV applications.
--
Christopher F. Neumann
[dBASE Gold Charter Member 107]
Blue Star Visual dBASE graduate
IWA-HWG Web Technologies Certified
IWA-HWG Web Programming Certified
ICCP TCP/IP Network Analyst
Data Communications Engineer
http://cfneumann.us
"Just hanging out on the Sagittarian arm of the Milky Way"
*Lysander* wrote:
> Rick schrieb:
>
> Best solution is to make a full install of the application on each
> workstation. But that is only _my_ recommendation while others don't
> see the problem.
>
> Definitely, MS has brought up some security enhancements, and some
> older applications and programming languages could not follow the
> necessary details.
>
> You don't have problems while your customer has.
> But with all those small changes, fixes, patches etc... you can
> never be too sure that your clients have indeed the same system as
> you have.
> I saw cases, when DEP was no problem.
> Another machine, same set of system, fixes and patches... sloooooow.
> Just something was configured differently by the admin, and DEP will
> kill you.
>
> We are still lucky that there _is_ a high chance to get rid off the
> problem by turning away from DEO. Just try it and you will see if
> this is a solution or not. If not, I am clueless. At least, if DEP
> is the culprit in your case, turning off DEO will help.
> (see MS knowledgebase on ALL enhancements of SP 2, as well as on DEP
> Data execution prevention).
| |
| Rick Gearardo 2006-03-27, 8:24 pm |
| Is the network connected to the internet?. You may have a workstation
hogging the bandwith with a worm or remailer running.
Try disconnecting the workstations and reconnect them one at a time
(individually) and testing if the speed varies on certain workstations only.
Try disconnecting the internet.
The only slowdowns I have here (50 users) is when there is high network
traffic, usually Monday mornings when all the sales people are here. They
are notorious internet abusers.
Look for any real-time backup software running on a workstation or the
server (like folderShare).
Rick
>I test my DEO app on a P3 500 mhz 256mb memory workstation running on a
>100mbps network with 2 users. The menu appears in <10 seconds with the
>client's tables installed on the server.
>
> My client runs it on a P4 2.8 ghz 512 mb memory workstation on a 100 mbps
> network with 7 users. The menu appears in 3 minutes. This is with
> anti-virus checking turned off, and even if only 2 users are logged on to
> the app.
>
> Cannot figure why. Any ideas on what I can do to speed up the opening of
> the app on client?s network?
>
> Anyone know how much memory on the server is recommended? It is one thing
> I did not check with them on yet. Are there settings on a router that
> need optimized (mine did not require anything like that to get the 10
> second load time)?
>
> I have similar installations with the same very slow load time problem. I
> feel like I must be missing something, but the installations of bde and
> tables are the same on my network as theirs. Only difference I can tell
> is they have more users. But if only 2 users are actually logged in to
> the app, should'nt they get the same performance I get?
>
> Thanks for any and all ideas,
> Rick
>
| |
|
| Rick,
Sounds good. A couple questions:
Rick Gearardo Wrote:
> Is the network connected to the internet?. You may have a workstation
> hogging the bandwith with a worm or remailer running.
>
> Try disconnecting the workstations and reconnect them one at a time
> (individually) and testing if the speed varies on certain workstations only.
>
Sorry to be literal here, but I am assuming if the workstaiton is turned off, then it is not a factor on the network correct? Then I should just try turning on one workstation and log in to network then into my app?
> Try disconnecting the internet.
>
They have DSL line, and they can get to the internet just clicking on Internet Explorer. When you say disconnect internet, do you mean maybe physically pulling the plug on the router that is connected to DSL line?
> The only slowdowns I have here (50 users) is when there is high network
> traffic, usually Monday mornings when all the sales people are here. They
> are notorious internet abusers.
>
That is impressive and comforting to know 50 users can be in an app. Sounds huge compared to teh little 7 users they have.
> Look for any real-time backup software running on a workstation or the
> server (like folderShare).
>
Will Do. And many thanks.
Rick
> Rick
>
>
>
| |
|
| Chris,
Yes, they use Norton and I know it has a problem with deo from what I hear. We had them disable the dir with the deo objects and even all the dir with tables on the server. But only saw a slight increase in performance.
Thanks,
Rick
Christopher F. Neumann Wrote:
> Besides DEP, you need to look at AV applications.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Christopher F. Neumann
>
> [dBASE Gold Charter Member 107]
> Blue Star Visual dBASE graduate
> IWA-HWG Web Technologies Certified
> IWA-HWG Web Programming Certified
> ICCP TCP/IP Network Analyst
> Data Communications Engineer
> http://cfneumann.us
>
> "Just hanging out on the Sagittarian arm of the Milky Way"
>
>
>
> *Lysander* wrote:
>
>
| |
| Christopher F. Neumann 2006-03-27, 8:24 pm |
| What about temporarily (10 minutes) turning off AV on 3 computers and test with those?
--
Christopher F. Neumann
[dBASE Gold Charter Member 107]
Blue Star Visual dBASE graduate
IWA-HWG Web Technologies Certified
IWA-HWG Web Programming Certified
ICCP TCP/IP Network Analyst
Data Communications Engineer
http://cfneumann.us
"Just hanging out on the Sagittarian arm of the Milky Way"
Rick wrote:[color=darkred
]
> Chris,
>
> Yes, they use Norton and I know it has a problem with deo from what I
> hear. We had them disable the dir with the deo objects and even all
> the dir with tables on the server. But only saw a slight increase in
> performance.
>
> Thanks,
> Rick
>
>
> Christopher F. Neumann Wrote:
>
| |
| Rick Gearardo 2006-03-27, 8:24 pm |
| > Sounds good. A couple questions:
>
> Sorry to be literal here, but I am assuming if the workstaiton is turned
> off, then it is not a factor on the network correct? Then I should just
> try turning on one workstation and log in to network then into my app?
I would actually disconect the network cable physically then reconnect one
at time. One thing I did not mention. Is your test network switched or does
it use a hub, and the same at your customer site? A switch is much faster
than a hub.
Was their 100Mb an upgrade from 10Mb and if so did they change from Cat3 to
Cat5 cable? Cat3 can only go at 10Mhz.
>
>
>
> They have DSL line, and they can get to the internet just clicking on
> Internet Explorer. When you say disconnect internet, do you mean maybe
> physically pulling the plug on the router that is connected to DSL line?
Yes. They may need to notify their ISP if it is a managed router. If they
don't it's no big deal but the ISP may call them.
>
>
>
> That is impressive and comforting to know 50 users can be in an app.
> Sounds huge compared to teh little 7 users they have.
>
>
>
> Will Do. And many thanks.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
| |
|
| Rick,
I have a hub and so do they. They reported they have Cat5 cables, but when they upgraded their workstations to p4s, they kept their old server, which may be causing some of the problem.
Planning to take your advice and go thru step by step to see what is up with this issue.
Really appreciate all your help on this.
Rick
Rick Gearardo Wrote:
>
> I would actually disconect the network cable physically then reconnect one
> at time. One thing I did not mention. Is your test network switched or does
> it use a hub, and the same at your customer site? A switch is much faster
> than a hub.
>
> Was their 100Mb an upgrade from 10Mb and if so did they change from Cat3 to
> Cat5 cable? Cat3 can only go at 10Mhz.
>
>
> Yes. They may need to notify their ISP if it is a managed router. If they
> don't it's no big deal but the ISP may call them.
>
>
>
| |
|
| Chris,
Yes, will be stepping thru their system probably disconnecting workstations as Rick G. suggested to get to the bottom of this. Will be certain to turn off the AV as well. Am also getting all the details on their version of XP. Will be time consuming, b
ut am determined to find a solution.
Thanks for your input,
Rick
Christopher F. Neumann Wrote:
> What about temporarily (10 minutes) turning off AV on 3 computers and test with those?
>
>
> --
>
> Christopher F. Neumann
>
> [dBASE Gold Charter Member 107]
> Blue Star Visual dBASE graduate
> IWA-HWG Web Technologies Certified
> IWA-HWG Web Programming Certified
> ICCP TCP/IP Network Analyst
> Data Communications Engineer
> http://cfneumann.us
>
> "Just hanging out on the Sagittarian arm of the Milky Way"
>
>
>
> Rick wrote:
>
>
| |
| Sébastien de Breuck 2006-03-28, 7:24 am |
| Rick,
To increase the performance over the network, I've put my application (and the data of course) on a Terminal Server. Works fine and very fast. The advantage of this, only 1 machine to maintain and nothing to install on the PC of the users, only a shortcut
. But the disadvantage is you need a machine dedicated to TS.
Sébastien
| |
| *Lysander* 2006-03-28, 9:24 am |
| Rick schrieb:
> I have a hub and so do they. They reported they have Cat5 cables, but when they upgraded their workstations to p4s, they kept their old server, which may be causing some of the problem.
Hub?
As in "Hub, but not a switch"??
This would not be a good idea in a modern P2P-Network.
If so, go and buy a small-office switch.
Around here, you can get good ones already for less than $25. I
suppose they must be even cheaper in USA.
See, if that will not already increase performance drastically.
| |
|
| Sébastien,
This sounds promising. Not familiar with TS. Anything more you can tell me? Maybe an article where I can read up on it?
Thanks,
Rick
Sébastien de Breuck Wrote:
> Rick,
>
> To increase the performance over the network, I've put my application (and the data of course) on a Terminal Server. Works fine and very fast. The advantage of this, only 1 machine to maintain and nothing to install on the PC of the users, only a shortc
ut. But the disadvantage is you need a machine dedicated to TS.
>
> Sébastien
| |
| Sébastien de Breuck 2006-03-28, 8:24 pm |
| Rick,
The setup of TS was done by the IT department (I can ask more info if wanted), but the principle is that the the server (could be a PC) has the app and the data and do the job instead of the PC. The server is setup for TS. Than the user can acces the app
via program -> accesories - > communication -> remote desktop communication (stored in a shortcut). So far I can remember there was an article in a dBulletin.
Sébastien
Rick Wrote:
> Sébastien,
>
> This sounds promising. Not familiar with TS. Anything more you can tell me? Maybe an article where I can read up on it?
>
> Thanks,
> Rick
>
>
| |
|
| Sébastien,
Yes, I see now. I am familiar with remote desktop, but a setup like this I thought would require a separate PC at the server's location. Then when you run remote desktop, it takes over that PC so noone else can use it. This would mean, if I understand
it, if you wanted 5 users at one site to all log in at same time, there would need to be 5 PCs at that site, and 5 more PCs at the server location.
I wonder if there is a way to do this remote desktop without dedicated PCs at the server site? Maybe the server runs 5 sessions some way.
Guess I do not have the expertise at this I need. If the IT department has any reference articles on how to set this up, would appreciate the info. Particularly if there is a way to do it without dedicating PCs at the server site.
Thanks again for your help on this,
Rick
Sébastien de Breuck Wrote:
> Rick,
>
> The setup of TS was done by the IT department (I can ask more info if wanted), but the principle is that the the server (could be a PC) has the app and the data and do the job instead of the PC. The server is setup for TS. Than the user can acces the ap
p via program -> accesories - > communication -> remote desktop communication (stored in a shortcut). So far I can remember there was an article in a dBulletin.
>
>
> Sébastien
>
> Rick Wrote:
>
>
| |
|
| Andre,
Maybe I have the terms confused. We use a router here and they also have a router. I always thought a network router is considered a hub, but maybe not.
Is a router what you were referring to when you use the term switch?
Thanks,
Rick
*Lysander* Wrote:
> Rick schrieb:
>
>
> Hub?
> As in "Hub, but not a switch"??
> This would not be a good idea in a modern P2P-Network.
>
> If so, go and buy a small-office switch.
> Around here, you can get good ones already for less than $25. I
> suppose they must be even cheaper in USA.
>
> See, if that will not already increase performance drastically.
| |
| Sharlene England 2006-03-28, 8:24 pm |
| We currently have a remote office and are using remote desktop for many
dbase applications. You only require one terminal services Host machine.
As many people can connect at once as you want. It is limited only by the
resources of the Host computer itself (and your licenses).
People can connect locally or remotely to this TS server, when you connect
you use the resources of the Host machine, which is where the actual program
is installed. Although in my case the databases are on the primary server
(which is not the TS server). The only thing transmitted back and forth
across the wire are the screen shots and keystrokes. The speed is very
good.
It works very well and decreases the deployment / setup problems. When I
make a program change I only have to put it onto one machine.
Keep in mind that printing can be a bit tricky with TS.
Sharlene England
| |
| Rick Gearardo 2006-03-28, 8:24 pm |
| The router hooks into the DSL line and the switch or hub plugs into the
router (or fiewall if there is one) the workstations connect to the switch
or hub. It is possible that they have a combined router/hub/switch.
A switch routes packets to specific workstations, a hub broadcasts to all
workstations but are ignored by any but the requester. If they have a hub
instead of a switch the have 8 times more network traffic. And that goes up
with every computer.
Rick
"Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1cRiQgqUGHA.1868@news-server...
> Andre,
>
> Maybe I have the terms confused. We use a router here and they also have
> a router. I always thought a network router is considered a hub, but
> maybe not.
>
> Is a router what you were referring to when you use the term switch?
>
> Thanks,
> Rick
>
> *Lysander* Wrote:
>
>
| |
| *Lysander* 2006-03-28, 8:24 pm |
| Rick Gearardo schrieb:
> A switch routes packets to specific workstations, a hub broadcasts to all
> workstations but are ignored by any but the requester. If they have a hub
> instead of a switch the have 8 times more network traffic. And that goes up
> with every computer.
Yep!
PLUS that hubs usually cannot master Full Duplex which means a total
loss of speed of about 40% for every connection, even when there are
only 2 clients online in the network.
PLUS that hubs usually cannot manage 2 different speeds.
If you have even only _one_ device in the network which does only
10Mbit, then the complete section will run only 10Mbit
(most favourite trap: printers with network adapters on 10Mbit slowing
down a complete company...)
But if you are not sure, I would bet you have a switch, and not a hub.
It's just so, that about 3 years ago 100MBit office switches (8-10
ports) became drastically cheaper. (from about $200 to $25)
Look into the settings of your network adapter, something like "driver
specifications" (don't know the term in english Windows).
If it's set to Full Duplex/100 MBit, and if you're still alive... well,
then it most likely is a switch... :)
Oh!
And while we're at that.... there are some networks, that just keep
vomiting when you preset the speed to 100Mbit, even though the switches
could do it.
If your client has 100MBit Full Duplex preset, they could try to preset
everything to "autosense". Most likely it will still run with 100MBit
Full Duplex, but it will stop to stumble.
ciao,
André
| |
|
| Sharlene,
That's cool. So if I understand, no need for dedicated PCs at the server, but rather remote desktop can connect from several remote PCs into one server, right? Then the host server runs the app. Seems like the host server must be pretty powerful to han
dle running apps for multiple users tho.
My app currently can be opened only once on a single workstation, i.e., it cannot be opened in more than one window on the same PC. This is partly cause it is a very large app and has trouble running on the same PC in > 1 window, and partly to help manag
e licensing users.
Question: If 5 people using remote desktop from 5 different PCs connect to the same host server, would the host server be running my app 5 times (as tho it were running it in 5 different windows on that server), or does Terminal Services running on the h
ost server have some technology such that each remote desktop connection is running in some type of independent virtual machine.
That is, does TS make it possible to run an EXE multiple times that normally would be restricted to running in only one window due to resource demands?
I can remove the restriction if needed, but a single workstation would not be able to run the app 5 or more times because of the resource demands. But TS must get around that some way, or maybe the server must be especially powerful and not your standard
pc.
Sorry for all the questions, but this sounds like an exciting option.
Thanks,
Rick
Sharlene England Wrote:
> We currently have a remote office and are using remote desktop for many
> dbase applications. You only require one terminal services Host machine.
> As many people can connect at once as you want. It is limited only by the
> resources of the Host computer itself (and your licenses).
>
> People can connect locally or remotely to this TS server, when you connect
> you use the resources of the Host machine, which is where the actual program
> is installed. Although in my case the databases are on the primary server
> (which is not the TS server). The only thing transmitted back and forth
> across the wire are the screen shots and keystrokes. The speed is very
> good.
>
> It works very well and decreases the deployment / setup problems. When I
> make a program change I only have to put it onto one machine.
>
> Keep in mind that printing can be a bit tricky with TS.
>
> Sharlene England
>
>
| |
|
| Rick,
I have a wireless router that has 4 wired connections that the box says are switches. So this sounds like another good potential for the speed differences.
BTW, thanks for the clear definitions.
Meantime, I found out they are using a 486 as their server, which they had reported they replaced with a P4! I get the feeling this could be the real problem. They have all P4 workstations, which I am sure are requesting info much faster than the 486 ca
n handle. They are switching out the 486 and we'll see what that does.
Thanks,
Rick
Rick Gearardo Wrote:
> The router hooks into the DSL line and the switch or hub plugs into the
> router (or fiewall if there is one) the workstations connect to the switch
> or hub. It is possible that they have a combined router/hub/switch.
>
> A switch routes packets to specific workstations, a hub broadcasts to all
> workstations but are ignored by any but the requester. If they have a hub
> instead of a switch the have 8 times more network traffic. And that goes up
> with every computer.
>
> Rick
>
> "Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:1cRiQgqUGHA.1868@news-server...
>
>
| |
|
| André,
Appreciate the extra info. Yes, this client upgraded a lot of hardware to install my app. Good possibility they short cut some things and are still using Cat3 cables or maybe a 10Mbps printer connection. They got all P4 workstations, but they had not u
pgraded their server from an old 486. I get the feeling that may be one of the big problems. I am anxiously waiting to hear what happens when they switch in a P4 for the server.
Many thanks for all your help. Even if the new server helps, now I have lots of other things for them to check on to get performance up.
Rick
This will give me lots more to check out.
*Lysander* Wrote:
> Rick Gearardo schrieb:
>
>
> Yep!
> PLUS that hubs usually cannot master Full Duplex which means a total
> loss of speed of about 40% for every connection, even when there are
> only 2 clients online in the network.
> PLUS that hubs usually cannot manage 2 different speeds.
> If you have even only _one_ device in the network which does only
> 10Mbit, then the complete section will run only 10Mbit
> (most favourite trap: printers with network adapters on 10Mbit slowing
> down a complete company...)
>
> But if you are not sure, I would bet you have a switch, and not a hub.
> It's just so, that about 3 years ago 100MBit office switches (8-10
> ports) became drastically cheaper. (from about $200 to $25)
>
> Look into the settings of your network adapter, something like "driver
> specifications" (don't know the term in english Windows).
>
> If it's set to Full Duplex/100 MBit, and if you're still alive... well,
> then it most likely is a switch... :)
>
> Oh!
> And while we're at that.... there are some networks, that just keep
> vomiting when you preset the speed to 100Mbit, even though the switches
> could do it.
> If your client has 100MBit Full Duplex preset, they could try to preset
> everything to "autosense". Most likely it will still run with 100MBit
> Full Duplex, but it will stop to stumble.
>
> ciao,
> André
| |
| *Lysander* 2006-03-29, 3:24 am |
| Rick schrieb:
> Appreciate the extra info. Yes, this client upgraded a lot of hardware to install my app. Good possibility they short cut some things and are still using Cat3 cables or maybe a 10Mbps printer connection. They got all P4 workstations, but they had not
upgraded their server from an old 486. I get the feeling that may be one of the big problems. I am anxiously waiting to hear what happens when they switch in a P4 for the server.
If they have a 486 as "server", do they _really_ run WinXP on it???
If not, _again_ consider the following:
In a Peer-to-Peer network, where different systems are mixed (XP and
9x/ME) the "server"-part _must_ be done by one of the XP stations.
This is according to information from Borland themselves.
ciao,
André
| |
| Paul Van House 2006-03-29, 9:24 am |
| In article <JxQbMVrUGHA.1176@news-server>, Sportman7@netzero.com says...
> Sharlene,
>
> That's cool. So if I understand, no need for dedicated PCs at the server, but rather remote desktop can connect from several remote PCs into one server, right? Then the host server runs the app. Seems like the host server must be pretty powerful to h
andle running apps for multiple users tho.
Ideally, the server would have a server class operating system (not sure
if TS can run without Server 2000 or Server 2003) And yes, the server
should be configured hardware-wise to handle the load.
>
>
> Question: If 5 people using remote desktop from 5 different PCs connect
> to the same host server, would the host server be running my app 5 times
> (as tho it were running it in 5 different windows on that server),
> or does Terminal Services running on the host server have some technology
> such that each remote desktop connection is running in some type of
> independent virtual machine.
The server would be running the app 5 times, but each user is in an
isolated session. Usually the only thing you need to change, as
Sharlene pointed out, is to avoid writing things to C:\Temp...or any
specific folder. The best thing to do is create a Unique temp file name
funique()
and/or write temp files to the user's temp folder
getenv('temp'
TS creates a unique temp folder for each user and it's optionally
cleared when the user logs out so don't depend on the files being there
next time the user logs in.
>
> That is, does TS make it possible to run an EXE multiple times that normally
> would be restricted to running in only one window due to resource demands?
As far as dBASE is concerned, it can only see each individual user's
app...not all of them. If one user tried to start the app twice, your
already-programmed safeguard would kick in.
>
> I can remove the restriction if needed, but a single workstation would not
> be able to run the app 5 or more times because of the resource demands.
> But TS must get around that some way, or maybe the server must be
> especially powerful and not your standard pc.
Again, each user is an individual session. Keep your safeguard in
place, but your Terminal Server should be a server-class machine. An
adequately powerful machine in TS mode will result in much better
performance for your users than the P4 processesors they currently use.
You can also put their daily productivity apps on TS as well (E-mail,
Word Processing, etc)
>
> Sorry for all the questions, but this sounds like an exciting option.
Exciting but possibly pricey....although one good TS machine is cheaper
than replacing a bunch of lower-powered work stations. There is a
break-even point, of course, depending on how many work stations you
have versus the cost of the Terminal Server, OS, and licenses. You'll
have to do the math.
>
Paul Van House
| |
|
| Paul,
Many thanks for this info. Gave me a good handle on the possibilities.
Rick
Paul Van House Wrote:
> In article <JxQbMVrUGHA.1176@news-server>, Sportman7@netzero.com says...
handle running apps for multiple users tho.[color=darkred]
> Ideally, the server would have a server class operating system (not sure
> if TS can run without Server 2000 or Server 2003) And yes, the server
> should be configured hardware-wise to handle the load.
> The server would be running the app 5 times, but each user is in an
> isolated session. Usually the only thing you need to change, as
> Sharlene pointed out, is to avoid writing things to C:\Temp...or any
> specific folder. The best thing to do is create a Unique temp file name
> funique()
> and/or write temp files to the user's temp folder
> getenv('temp'
> TS creates a unique temp folder for each user and it's optionally
> cleared when the user logs out so don't depend on the files being there
> next time the user logs in.
>
> As far as dBASE is concerned, it can only see each individual user's
> app...not all of them. If one user tried to start the app twice, your
> already-programmed safeguard would kick in.
>
> Again, each user is an individual session. Keep your safeguard in
> place, but your Terminal Server should be a server-class machine. An
> adequately powerful machine in TS mode will result in much better
> performance for your users than the P4 processesors they currently use.
> You can also put their daily productivity apps on TS as well (E-mail,
> Word Processing, etc)
>
> Exciting but possibly pricey....although one good TS machine is cheaper
> than replacing a bunch of lower-powered work stations. There is a
> break-even point, of course, depending on how many work stations you
> have versus the cost of the Terminal Server, OS, and licenses. You'll
> have to do the math.
>
>
> Paul Van House
| |
|
| Andre,
They have Win 2000 on the server. Am having them switch out the 486 and put in one of their new XP workstations as the server to see the effect. Can't imagine anything but much better performance when they do, even if they run it peer to peer.
Thanks,
Rick
*Lysander* Wrote:
> Rick schrieb:
>
ot upgraded their server from an old 486. I get the feeling that may be one of the big problems. I am anxiously waiting to hear what happens when they switch in a P4 for the server.[color=darkred]
>
>
If they have a 486 as "server", do they _really_ run WinXP on it???
>
> If not, _again_ consider the following:
> In a Peer-to-Peer network, where different systems are mixed (XP and
> 9x/ME) the "server"-part _must_ be done by one of the XP stations.
> This is according to information from Borland themselves.
>
> ciao,
> André
| |
| David Kerber 2006-03-29, 11:24 am |
| In article <0c3BmeqUGHA.1176@news-server>, Sportman7@netzero.com says...
> S=E9bastien,
>=20
> Yes, I see now. I am familiar with remote desktop, but a setup like this=
I thought would require a separate PC at the server's location. Then when=
you run remote desktop, it takes over that PC so noone else can use it. T=
his would mean, if I understand it, if you wanted 5 users at one site to al=
l log in at same time, there would need to be 5 PCs at that site, and 5 mor=
e PCs at the server location.
>=20
> I wonder if there is a way to do this remote desktop without dedicated PC=
s at the server site? Maybe the server runs 5 sessions some way. =20
If you run TS in "Application Server" mode, rather than "Remote=20
Administration" mode, you can connect as many as your hardware will=20
reasonably handle. You just have to get enough licenses to support the=20
number of simultaneous users you will have. We use this for SAS because=20
of the way it's licensed - it's tons cheaper to have one installation=20
licensed for 15 simultaneous users than it is for 15 single-user=20
licenses.
.....=20
--=20
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the=20
newsgroups if possible).
| |
| Paul Van House 2006-03-30, 11:24 am |
| In article <AQbr1I0UGHA.1692@news-server>, Sportman7@netzero.com says...
> Paul,
>
>
> Many thanks for this info. Gave me a good handle on the possibilities.
>
Actually, I think the BDE has a limit to the number of sessions it can
handle...but it's way more than the 5 or 6 you plan on using.
--
Paul Van House
remove ".removeme" for e-mail replies
Radio/TV Software and Baseball Stat Software:
http://www.binxsoftware.com
Family Home Page: http://vanhouse.binxsoftware.com
Church Home Page: http://www.ashfordumc.org
| |
|
| David,
Thanks. Sounds like I should try setting this up and see better how it works.
Does printing to their local printer work ok? I've heard it can be tricky to set up a remote person to print to their own printer at their workstation.
Thanks,
Rick
David Kerber Wrote:
> In article <0c3BmeqUGHA.1176@news-server>, Sportman7@netzero.com says...
and it, if you wanted 5 users at one site to all log in at same time, there would need to be 5 PCs at that site, and 5 more PCs at the server location.[color=darkred]
>
> If you run TS in "Application Server" mode, rather than "Remote
> Administration" mode, you can connect as many as your hardware will
> reasonably handle. You just have to get enough licenses to support the
> number of simultaneous users you will have. We use this for SAS because
> of the way it's licensed - it's tons cheaper to have one installation
> licensed for 15 simultaneous users than it is for 15 single-user
> licenses.
>
> ....
>
> --
> Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> newsgroups if possible).
| |
|
| Paul,
Yes, I remember reading that in the ng one time. Thanks for the reminder.
Rick
Paul Van House Wrote:
> In article <AQbr1I0UGHA.1692@news-server>, Sportman7@netzero.com says...
>
>
> Actually, I think the BDE has a limit to the number of sessions it can
> handle...but it's way more than the 5 or 6 you plan on using.
> --
> Paul Van House
> remove ".removeme" for e-mail replies
> Radio/TV Software and Baseball Stat Software:
> http://www.binxsoftware.com
> Family Home Page: http://vanhouse.binxsoftware.com
> Church Home Page: http://www.ashfordumc.org
| |
| Christopher F. Neumann 2006-03-31, 9:24 am |
| underprocessable |
|
|
|
|