>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A customer is having an issue of VFP9 application being slow (when used from desktops). The IT guy sent me the following message:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The server is located in our corporate data center with slightly more latency, about 19ms, that doesn't seem like it should be this slow though."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is 19ms latency very bad and could cause the application being slow? What are the typical ranges of latency?
>>>>>
>>>>>What type of connection is between the desktops running your app, and the "corporate data center"?
>>>>>
>>>>>If the desktops and the center are in the same physical location, and on the same LAN then latency should be less than 1 millisecond. A LAN link should also have high bandwidth, so with those two things a reasonably well designed VFP app working against VFP tables should perform adequately.
>>>>>
>>>>>A 19ms latency says to me the link is either WAN/Internet (in which case 19ms is fairly decent) or maybe something in between a WAN and a LAN (i.e. a MAN/dedicated point-to-point link, which is not uncommon for "corporate data centers"). Either of those will also have lower bandwidth than a LAN.
>>>>>
>>>>>Writing this I seem to recall replying to a similar earlier message from you - here it is: Message#1630960
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for the detailed message and for reminding me of another case of "slow" connection. I think their connection is WAN because today the IT person sent me a message informing me that they would be moving the server to their "local environment." Apparently everything that they tried didn't produce the speed the end-users expected. They just moved the app from Server 2003 to 2012 because if I understand it, the MS will stop supporting 2003. The end-users were very happy with the application speed on 2003. Now it is a big issue.
>>>>One thing I suggested to them is to exclude the application folder from the AV. Hopefully they did. Now we will if the move to the local environment will be what the end users want.
>>>>Again, thank you.
>>>
>>>Server 2003 was no longer supported by MS as of July 2015. It may be they were running a 2003 Server locally, and they decided to "consolidate" to a new 2012 R2 server in their "data center". If so, the cause of slowness is not the switch to Server 2012, but that they moved it to the data center.
>>>
>>>If it's supporting multiple simultaneous users then the Server 2012 machine should have certain networking parameters set in the Registry: Message#1620274
>>
>>I agree that the slowness is not because of 2012 but "distance" to the "data center". And I do remember the thread about SMB2. I have not told them to make any changes yet as far as SMB2.
>
>Just to be clear, the SMB2 registry entries are not for performance, they're for reliability - preventing index corruption issues.

Thank you for clarifying. I am glad I didn't suggest to the customer the SMB2 registry entries because the only problem they have is the performance.