Fred,

I've seen very similar situations to yours, and I have found that in most cases, it is packet collisions in the network. An NT4 machine with 128 MB RAM and 10mbps network should be plenty for ten users. 10-100mbps is more than enough.

First, a disclaimer: I am not a network guy, and much of what I'm saying is simple regurgitation from network guys. But it seems to work.

Now, packet collisions will cause significant decreases in network throughput. I have seen networks appear to stand still because of this problem. The solution has always been to add a hub, or better yet a switch. I've always been told that you should never use all the ports in a hub - at least a few should be free. So if they are using a 10-12 port hub and 10 ports are being used, that could be your problem right there. Add a hub, or as I set before, better yet a switch. In fact, a hub with that many ports is probably an issue in and of itself. You need a few hubs either bridged or switched, or a good switch.

Why does this happen? From what I understand, hubs are dumb. Every time they get a network request, they transmit that request to all ports. So when you have lots of ports being used, there are lots of collisions of packets. When there is a collision, all packets are re-transmitted, resulting in the perception of a slow network (this is the stuff I'm regurgitating).

A switch is smarter - it manages traffic to help prevent collisions.

I think that might be your problem. Try getting a switch, or at least bridge a few hubs.

Good luck,

David




>Hi Al,
>
>Thanks for your response. The 'lag' is pretty much system wide, but primarily with forms opening and saving data/changes. It is a
>math-intensive system, so lots of calculations have to occur plus checking against historical transactions when a change is made.
>The server hardware only has 128 MB of RAM, but is being doubled. It runs Windows NT 4.0
>The Network Speed is 10-100, I'm told.
>The workstations are all Windows 98 or above with 128 MB RAM or above. Most CPUs are 700 Mhz or above.
>
>Your advice to upgrade to a PUTM is wise and I will do that!
>
>Thanks again for your response.
>
>Fred