Hi Dodi

I once had a client call me about a sever slow down. When I went to look, the server was running a really intense screen saver. As soon as I stopped the screen saver, people started popping out of the offices/cubicles asking why everything sped up so suddenly! Its good to be the hero <g>.


>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>Universal Thread has been really helpful however as of now I'm really at wits end... :-\
>>>
>>>The users are complaining that the time response is very slow. We have a new Windows 2000 server - Dell PowerEdge 4400, "x86 Family 6 Model 8 Stepping 6 GenuineIntel ~993 Mhz", 1 GB RAM, 17 GB on drive C (utility stuff) and 87 GB on drive D (VFP database/tables). I ran a simple test - a simple view. The table consists of 1,000 records. Using VFP (not a compiled application), opening the view takes less than a second (about 100 records out of 1,000). With another user logged on but without opening the view, it takes 8 seconds. If the other user opens the view, it takes 10 seconds. Now that's just opening a simple view by itself, not running any form, nor any application, whatsoever.
>>>
>>>I tried disabling the anti-virus program on the server as well as on the workstations to no success. The anti-virus software on the server (as well as the workstations) is McAfee, not Norton. So it's definitely not the anti-virus software. Anything else I can look into...?
>>
>>It's hard to comment without knowing a lot more about your environment. But, first of all, AV is the most usual suspect with this sort of problem; are you absolutely sure you properly shut off both server and WS side AV before testing on any workstation? If it's not too difficult you might try completely uninstalling the product for testing, then reinstalling.
>>
>>Aside from that, assuming fairly modern workstations and 100BASE-T networking you should see sub-second view open times with any ole' piece o' junk as the backend server dishing up that small table.
>>
>>- Make sure everyone's using a CONFIG.FPW that points temp files to a local disk, not a server disk
>>
>>Beyond that, you'll need to look at the environment. Is the server CPU busy or is the disk pounded hard? Is there a jabbering network card flooding the network with bad packets? How is network performance of other (non-VFP) apps? Sounds like you're going to need to get your network admin on side for this one.
>
>Hello Al,
>
>First of all, many thanks for replying.
>
>Yes, I have temp files (working, sorting, etc) set to local disk in CONFIG.FPW. As a matter of fact, I'm rewriting an application from FP 2.6 (DOS version) to VFP 6.0. Old application (.EXE) in FP 2.6 on users' local drives accessing tables on very old server (about 8+ years old) still works very well - faster than VFP 6.0 on brand new server. Strange. Now you see why the users are complaining, they'd rather stay on the old system.
>
>As for AV, I don't think I can uninstall or I'd be in trouble! ;-) I just disabled it and tested it. Furthermore, I don't have access to the server physically, only via Terminal Client. According to the postings, the problematic AV appears to be only Norton, nothing was mentioned about McAfee...
>
>A guy over in Network Admin said I need to install VFP 6.0 on the new server. Should I do that? I've never installed FP 2.6 on the old server so I didn't think it would be necessary, eh...?
>
>I don't understand what you mean by "is the disk pounded hard?" Nor do I understand "Is there a jabbering network card flooding the network with bad pockets?"... as for network performance of other (non-VFP) apps, the new server is exclusively used for VFP database/tables, nothing else. As aforementioned, old application in FP 2.6 with tables on old server works well over the network - that is, in the same network architecture... :-\