>When you say you moved the program to the Server, are you saying that
>you moved the EXE file to the server or the Development environment.
>
>32 Megs on a Server is pretty low and since it is a Peer-to-Peer
>network the performance is going to be bad anyway since
>the peer's must service the network requests as well as
>servicing anything that is running anything that the user
>is requesting.
>
>You might want to consider running the EXE on the local machine
>and using the Data from the Network Server or something along
>those lines.
Bob, I think you've hit on one of the keys to network performance with a VFP app here. The VFP executable is referenced constantly to load segments of the p-code; very little of the app is full-time resident, and that includes VCXs and SCXs. Locating the executable locally makes a big difference. As does positioning the runtime (.DLL) files locally.
Tuning the application with CONFIG.FPW is another key. VFP makes some (IMO) foolish choices by default without direction by entries in the CONFIG.FPW as to where to place resource files and temp/intermediary files, especially when the executable is located on a remote machine. A local, machine-specific CONFIG.FPW for the application, referenced in the shortcut that starts up the app, can avoid most of VFP's bad decisions.
The selection of startup directory makes a difference, too. I've found that it's much better to start the app on a local drive and reset where I'm running via CD/SET DEFAULT; it may be that VFP makes some work file decisions based on where it initially starts up.
>
>We have apps running on Peer to Peer in the same situation as
>you and have not experinced anything out of the ordinary in
>terms of speed....
>
>Good Luck
>Bob :-)
>
>
>>I am about 1/3 of the way thru a project. I decided to test performance on a network. I copied all the files to a win95 peer to peer file server and ran the EXE. The results were and are DISMAL. That file server was a Pentium 133 with 32MB of memeory. We then moved the program to a pentium 300. Better performance but still not useable. I realize that I did not go thru an install procedure in WIN95 but would that have such a large inpact on performance. (The second machine has VFP6.0 installed on it) Are there any secrets to network performance with VFP6.0. Our experience with FOX 2.x is that network performance is close to that of local access so were were completely unprepared for this. Any help greatly appreciated.
