Slow speed opening tables

Is thre any way of speeding up the speed of opening a table on a 2nd
workstation?

If I use table X on one workstation it opens fast but if I open the same
table on a 2nd workstation, it take 3 times longer to open.

This is not the case on the server where it opens the same whether it is the
first or 2nd station to open the file.

I wrote a little test program that opens and closes a file 100 times in a
row to show this:

CLOSE DATA
set excl off
CLEAR

z = 0

FOR j = 1 TO 3
x = SECONDS()
FOR i = 1 TO 100
* Substitute a table on your server
USE \\hpws3\c$\temp\temp
USE
NEXT

y = SECONDS()
? y - x
z = z + y - x
NEXT

? z / 3

Any ideas?

Cheers

David

Man-wai
Thu Jun 14 06:30:32 CDT 2007

David Younger wrote:
> Is thre any way of speeding up the speed of opening a table on a 2nd
> workstation?
> set excl off
> * Substitute a table on your server
> USE \\hpws3\c$\temp\temp

try:

1. ping each others, check out the latency.
2. using IP address (if fast, dns problem)
3. use \\hpws3\c$\temp\temp shared noupdate




--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.21.5
^ ^ 19:28:01 up 1 day 22:56 0 users load average: 0.04 0.03 0.00
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk

David
Thu Jun 14 19:28:06 CDT 2007

It can take up to 3-4 times longer to open the tabels when the table is open
on another workstation.

Cheers
David


"Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23b1KidnrHHA.3276@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> David Younger wrote:
>> Is thre any way of speeding up the speed of opening a table on a 2nd
>> workstation?
>> set excl off
>> * Substitute a table on your server
>> USE \\hpws3\c$\temp\temp
>
> try:
>
> 1. ping each others, check out the latency.
> 2. using IP address (if fast, dns problem)
> 3. use \\hpws3\c$\temp\temp shared noupdate
>
>
>
>
> --
> @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
> / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
> /( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.21.5
> ^ ^ 19:28:01 up 1 day 22:56 0 users load average: 0.04 0.03 0.00
> news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk

David
Thu Jun 14 19:37:46 CDT 2007

The Noupdate actually made it a bit slower.

However this results in a read only cursor which will not work.

The problem seems universal, not just on my computer network.

I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations on a
network and see what results you get?

The speed difference between being the first to open the file and being the
2nd is staggering?

What's going on and how do we get around it?

This is not restricted to our network.

Cheers
David

"Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23b1KidnrHHA.3276@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> David Younger wrote:
>> Is thre any way of speeding up the speed of opening a table on a 2nd
>> workstation?
>> set excl off
>> * Substitute a table on your server
>> USE \\hpws3\c$\temp\temp
>
> try:
>
> 1. ping each others, check out the latency.
> 2. using IP address (if fast, dns problem)
> 3. use \\hpws3\c$\temp\temp shared noupdate
>
>
>
>
> --
> @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
> / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
> /( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.21.5
> ^ ^ 19:28:01 up 1 day 22:56 0 users load average: 0.04 0.03 0.00
> news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk

Man-wai
Thu Jun 14 21:41:02 CDT 2007

> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations on a
> network and see what results you get?

I still think it's the networking: bad network cards/hubs, dns, ..
or is it the firewall and anti-virus tools??

--
iTech Consulting Services Limited
Expert in ePOS (Point-Of-Sales) solutions
Website: http://www.itech.com.hk (IE only)
Tel: (852)2325 3883 Fax: (852)2325 8288

David
Fri Jun 15 02:51:20 CDT 2007

Have you tried it on your network to see what results you get?

We have a great network here and it appears, the clients network is pretty
good as well.

Cheers
David


"Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OtSmvavrHHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations on a
>> network and see what results you get?
>
> I still think it's the networking: bad network cards/hubs, dns, ..
> or is it the firewall and anti-virus tools??
>
> --
> iTech Consulting Services Limited
> Expert in ePOS (Point-Of-Sales) solutions
> Website: http://www.itech.com.hk (IE only)
> Tel: (852)2325 3883 Fax: (852)2325 8288

Man-wai
Fri Jun 15 06:25:08 CDT 2007

> We have a great network here and it appears, the clients network is pretty
> good as well.

Does your table have lots of indexes?
Size of the DBF and CDX are .... and .... respectively?

I am using Samba at home. :)

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.21.5
^ ^ 19:24:01 up 2 days 22:52 0 users load average: 0.00 0.02 0.00
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk

Man-wai
Fri Jun 15 06:29:34 CDT 2007

I tried this program in my 10Mbps coaxial cable home Ethernet:

clear all
CLOSE DATA
set safety off
set excl off
CLEAR

z = 0

FOR j = 1 TO 3
x = SECONDS()
FOR i = 1 TO 100
* Substitute a table on your server
create table \\server\bt\test ( haha c(120) )
USE
NEXT

y = SECONDS()
? y - x
z = z + y - x
NEXT

? z / 3

set safety on

average about 4.5 seconds.

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.21.5
^ ^ 19:28:01 up 2 days 22:56 0 users load average: 0.16 0.06 0.01
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk

tim_witort
Fri Jun 15 11:14:43 CDT 2007

David Younger seemed to utter in
news:OEI8nVurHHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> The Noupdate actually made it a bit slower.
>
> However this results in a read only cursor which will not work.
>
> The problem seems universal, not just on my computer network.
>
> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations on a
> network and see what results you get?
>
> The speed difference between being the first to open the file and being
> the 2nd is staggering?
>
> What's going on and how do we get around it?
>
> This is not restricted to our network.
>
> Cheers
> David

I have a decent sized database with about 100 tables containing
about 200MB of data stored on Machine A.

With the database opened by nobody else on the network, it took
25 seconds to open the database and all of the tables from
Machine B.

With the database and all tables already opened by Machine A,
it took 29 seconds to open the database and all tables
from Machine B.

I wouldn't call a 16% increase in opening speed "staggering."
A number of things may be causing the results you're seeing:

1) Excessive network activity

2) Faulty network hardware (cables, NICs, switches, hubs)

3) Application design

4) Huge tables and/or huge indexes

Have you performed this slow table open from a VFP session with
COVERAGE turned on to see exactly where the slow down occurs?
Is it just in the USE calls or somewhere else?

-- TRW
_______________________________________
t i m . w i t o r t
_______________________________________

Dan
Fri Jun 15 12:34:26 CDT 2007

Turn off opportuniatic locking in Windows. Turn off virus scanning.

We have hundreds of clients across the US ranging from 5 users to hundreds
of users. They complain about a lot of things, but not this.

Dan

David Younger wrote:
> Have you tried it on your network to see what results you get?
>
> We have a great network here and it appears, the clients network is
> pretty good as well.
>
> Cheers
> David
>
>
> "Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OtSmvavrHHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations
>>> on a network and see what results you get?
>>
>> I still think it's the networking: bad network cards/hubs, dns, ..
>> or is it the firewall and anti-virus tools??
>>
>> --
>> iTech Consulting Services Limited
>> Expert in ePOS (Point-Of-Sales) solutions
>> Website: http://www.itech.com.hk (IE only)
>> Tel: (852)2325 3883 Fax: (852)2325 8288

intel4
Sat Jun 16 04:43:18 CDT 2007

> Turn off opportuniatic locking in Windows. Turn off virus scanning.

What is this? please explain.

RGBean
Sat Jun 16 06:52:34 CDT 2007

Check out:
Configuring opportunistic locking in Windows -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/296264/en-us
You experience slow file server performance and delays occur when you work
with files that are located on a file server -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/822219/en-us
Improving Performance of MS-DOS Database Applications (Misnamed as far as
I'm concerned) - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/219022/en-us

There are many others, just search the MSDN knowledgebase.

Rick

"intel4" <intel_inside_4@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181986998.789699.97090@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> Turn off opportuniatic locking in Windows. Turn off virus scanning.
>
> What is this? please explain.
>

Zootal
Sat Jun 16 12:45:19 CDT 2007

If you have SET DELETED ON and no index on deleted(), opening tables will be
slower. Try creating an index on deleted(), or set deleted off when opening
tables. I used to work with 1.5+GB tables, and simply setting deleted off
made a huge difference when opening the tables.


"David Younger" <davidyounger1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ugjqS3grHHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Is thre any way of speeding up the speed of opening a table on a 2nd
> workstation?
>
> If I use table X on one workstation it opens fast but if I open the same
> table on a 2nd workstation, it take 3 times longer to open.
>
> This is not the case on the server where it opens the same whether it is
> the first or 2nd station to open the file.
>
> I wrote a little test program that opens and closes a file 100 times in a
> row to show this:
>
> CLOSE DATA
> set excl off
> CLEAR
>
> z = 0
>
> FOR j = 1 TO 3
> x = SECONDS()
> FOR i = 1 TO 100
> * Substitute a table on your server
> USE \\hpws3\c$\temp\temp
> USE
> NEXT
>
> y = SECONDS()
> ? y - x
> z = z + y - x
> NEXT
>
> ? z / 3
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Cheers
>
> David
>
>

Paul
Sat Jun 16 14:49:25 CDT 2007

The opportunistic locking problem in Windows was fixed a couple years ago.
Turning it off can really hurt performance.



"Dan Freeman" <spam@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Oc9psN3rHHA.4888@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Turn off opportuniatic locking in Windows. Turn off virus scanning.
>
> We have hundreds of clients across the US ranging from 5 users to hundreds
> of users. They complain about a lot of things, but not this.
>
> Dan
>
> David Younger wrote:
>> Have you tried it on your network to see what results you get?
>>
>> We have a great network here and it appears, the clients network is
>> pretty good as well.
>>
>> Cheers
>> David
>>
>>
>> "Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OtSmvavrHHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations
>>>> on a network and see what results you get?
>>>
>>> I still think it's the networking: bad network cards/hubs, dns, ..
>>> or is it the firewall and anti-virus tools??
>>>
>>> --
>>> iTech Consulting Services Limited
>>> Expert in ePOS (Point-Of-Sales) solutions
>>> Website: http://www.itech.com.hk (IE only)
>>> Tel: (852)2325 3883 Fax: (852)2325 8288
>
>

Fred
Sun Jun 17 18:44:18 CDT 2007

Where is that documented? I've just gone through this with a client and
turning it off was the cure.

--
Fred
Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP


"Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
news:OB76p9EsHHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The opportunistic locking problem in Windows was fixed a couple years ago.
> Turning it off can really hurt performance.
>
>
>
> "Dan Freeman" <spam@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:Oc9psN3rHHA.4888@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Turn off opportuniatic locking in Windows. Turn off virus scanning.
>>
>> We have hundreds of clients across the US ranging from 5 users to
>> hundreds of users. They complain about a lot of things, but not this.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> David Younger wrote:
>>> Have you tried it on your network to see what results you get?
>>>
>>> We have a great network here and it appears, the clients network is
>>> pretty good as well.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> "Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OtSmvavrHHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations
>>>>> on a network and see what results you get?
>>>>
>>>> I still think it's the networking: bad network cards/hubs, dns, ..
>>>> or is it the firewall and anti-virus tools??
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> iTech Consulting Services Limited
>>>> Expert in ePOS (Point-Of-Sales) solutions
>>>> Website: http://www.itech.com.hk (IE only)
>>>> Tel: (852)2325 3883 Fax: (852)2325 8288
>>
>>
>
>

David
Sun Jun 17 21:44:16 CDT 2007

I dont think it is the network.

The speed delay occurs even if I hold the tables open on different machines.
We have a very good network here.

I have disabled antivirus for dbf, fpt and cdx files on server and
workstation so this is ot it. And even if it was, the speed delay would then
occur when being the first person to open the files.

Also the table is very simple with only 94 records and no deleted records.

Cheers
David


"Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OtSmvavrHHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations on a
>> network and see what results you get?
>
> I still think it's the networking: bad network cards/hubs, dns, ..
> or is it the firewall and anti-virus tools??
>
> --
> iTech Consulting Services Limited
> Expert in ePOS (Point-Of-Sales) solutions
> Website: http://www.itech.com.hk (IE only)
> Tel: (852)2325 3883 Fax: (852)2325 8288

David
Sun Jun 17 21:44:55 CDT 2007

No - it has 94 records, no indexes and no delted records but it does have a
memo field.

Cheers
David


"Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OYeNH$zrHHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> We have a great network here and it appears, the clients network is
>> pretty good as well.
>
> Does your table have lots of indexes?
> Size of the DBF and CDX are .... and .... respectively?
>
> I am using Samba at home. :)
>
> --
> @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
> / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
> /( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.21.5
> ^ ^ 19:24:01 up 2 days 22:52 0 users load average: 0.00 0.02 0.00
> news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk

Paul
Sun Jun 17 22:38:34 CDT 2007

I can't remember exactly where I read that now, because the problem I had
was two or three years ago. I could swear that I read that it had been fixed
for Windows XP in an update. Win 2000 Server had a similar problem too if I
remember right.

Info re XP is here. The article says it was fixed in SP2.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/812937

I also remember that MS cautioned against disabling it, because of
performance problems. Sorry, I don't remember where that was either.



"Fred Taylor" <ftaylor@mvps.org!REMOVE> wrote in message
news:OjqislTsHHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Where is that documented? I've just gone through this with a client and
> turning it off was the cure.
>
> --
> Fred
> Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
>
>
> "Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:OB76p9EsHHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> The opportunistic locking problem in Windows was fixed a couple years
>> ago. Turning it off can really hurt performance.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Dan Freeman" <spam@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:Oc9psN3rHHA.4888@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Turn off opportuniatic locking in Windows. Turn off virus scanning.
>>>
>>> We have hundreds of clients across the US ranging from 5 users to
>>> hundreds of users. They complain about a lot of things, but not this.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> David Younger wrote:
>>>> Have you tried it on your network to see what results you get?
>>>>
>>>> We have a great network here and it appears, the clients network is
>>>> pretty good as well.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:OtSmvavrHHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations
>>>>>> on a network and see what results you get?
>>>>>
>>>>> I still think it's the networking: bad network cards/hubs, dns, ..
>>>>> or is it the firewall and anti-virus tools??
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> iTech Consulting Services Limited
>>>>> Expert in ePOS (Point-Of-Sales) solutions
>>>>> Website: http://www.itech.com.hk (IE only)
>>>>> Tel: (852)2325 3883 Fax: (852)2325 8288
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Fred
Sun Jun 17 23:02:46 CDT 2007

Everything I've read says it's essential to disable Oplocks for file based
database systems. And it's certainly not "fixed" in XP/SP2 as that's what
my client has for workstations. (Server is SBS W2K3).

--
Fred
Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP


"Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
news:%23Wa9loVsHHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I can't remember exactly where I read that now, because the problem I had
>was two or three years ago. I could swear that I read that it had been
>fixed for Windows XP in an update. Win 2000 Server had a similar problem
>too if I remember right.
>
> Info re XP is here. The article says it was fixed in SP2.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/812937
>
> I also remember that MS cautioned against disabling it, because of
> performance problems. Sorry, I don't remember where that was either.
>
>
>
> "Fred Taylor" <ftaylor@mvps.org!REMOVE> wrote in message
> news:OjqislTsHHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Where is that documented? I've just gone through this with a client and
>> turning it off was the cure.
>>
>> --
>> Fred
>> Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
>>
>>
>> "Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
>> news:OB76p9EsHHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> The opportunistic locking problem in Windows was fixed a couple years
>>> ago. Turning it off can really hurt performance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Dan Freeman" <spam@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Oc9psN3rHHA.4888@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> Turn off opportuniatic locking in Windows. Turn off virus scanning.
>>>>
>>>> We have hundreds of clients across the US ranging from 5 users to
>>>> hundreds of users. They complain about a lot of things, but not this.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> David Younger wrote:
>>>>> Have you tried it on your network to see what results you get?
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a great network here and it appears, the clients network is
>>>>> pretty good as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OtSmvavrHHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations
>>>>>>> on a network and see what results you get?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still think it's the networking: bad network cards/hubs, dns, ..
>>>>>> or is it the firewall and anti-virus tools??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> iTech Consulting Services Limited
>>>>>> Expert in ePOS (Point-Of-Sales) solutions
>>>>>> Website: http://www.itech.com.hk (IE only)
>>>>>> Tel: (852)2325 3883 Fax: (852)2325 8288
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Paul
Mon Jun 18 01:31:36 CDT 2007

From that article: "This problem was first corrected in Microsoft Windows XP
Service Pack 2."

Where have you read that about file based dbs's? (I assume you mean for
instance FP vs SQL?) I'd like to read that myself.



"Fred Taylor" <ftaylor@mvps.org!REMOVE> wrote in message
news:uaI9J2VsHHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Everything I've read says it's essential to disable Oplocks for file based
> database systems. And it's certainly not "fixed" in XP/SP2 as that's what
> my client has for workstations. (Server is SBS W2K3).
>
> --
> Fred
> Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
>
>
> "Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:%23Wa9loVsHHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I can't remember exactly where I read that now, because the problem I had
>>was two or three years ago. I could swear that I read that it had been
>>fixed for Windows XP in an update. Win 2000 Server had a similar problem
>>too if I remember right.
>>
>> Info re XP is here. The article says it was fixed in SP2.
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/812937
>>
>> I also remember that MS cautioned against disabling it, because of
>> performance problems. Sorry, I don't remember where that was either.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Fred Taylor" <ftaylor@mvps.org!REMOVE> wrote in message
>> news:OjqislTsHHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Where is that documented? I've just gone through this with a client and
>>> turning it off was the cure.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Fred
>>> Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
>>>
>>>
>>> "Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
>>> news:OB76p9EsHHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> The opportunistic locking problem in Windows was fixed a couple years
>>>> ago. Turning it off can really hurt performance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dan Freeman" <spam@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Oc9psN3rHHA.4888@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Turn off opportuniatic locking in Windows. Turn off virus scanning.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have hundreds of clients across the US ranging from 5 users to
>>>>> hundreds of users. They complain about a lot of things, but not this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>> David Younger wrote:
>>>>>> Have you tried it on your network to see what results you get?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a great network here and it appears, the clients network is
>>>>>> pretty good as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:OtSmvavrHHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations
>>>>>>>> on a network and see what results you get?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still think it's the networking: bad network cards/hubs, dns, ..
>>>>>>> or is it the firewall and anti-virus tools??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> iTech Consulting Services Limited
>>>>>>> Expert in ePOS (Point-Of-Sales) solutions
>>>>>>> Website: http://www.itech.com.hk (IE only)
>>>>>>> Tel: (852)2325 3883 Fax: (852)2325 8288
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Fred
Mon Jun 18 10:12:02 CDT 2007

There's many online articles and whitepapers (google "oplocks FoxPro") and
MSKB articles (Q219022,Q249799,etc), there's really quite a number of them,
and most all agree it should be off.

--
Fred
Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP


"Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
news:eoXzRJXsHHA.4796@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> From that article: "This problem was first corrected in Microsoft Windows
> XP Service Pack 2."
>
> Where have you read that about file based dbs's? (I assume you mean for
> instance FP vs SQL?) I'd like to read that myself.
>
>
>
> "Fred Taylor" <ftaylor@mvps.org!REMOVE> wrote in message
> news:uaI9J2VsHHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Everything I've read says it's essential to disable Oplocks for file
>> based database systems. And it's certainly not "fixed" in XP/SP2 as
>> that's what my client has for workstations. (Server is SBS W2K3).
>>
>> --
>> Fred
>> Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
>>
>>
>> "Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
>> news:%23Wa9loVsHHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>I can't remember exactly where I read that now, because the problem I had
>>>was two or three years ago. I could swear that I read that it had been
>>>fixed for Windows XP in an update. Win 2000 Server had a similar problem
>>>too if I remember right.
>>>
>>> Info re XP is here. The article says it was fixed in SP2.
>>>
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/812937
>>>
>>> I also remember that MS cautioned against disabling it, because of
>>> performance problems. Sorry, I don't remember where that was either.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Fred Taylor" <ftaylor@mvps.org!REMOVE> wrote in message
>>> news:OjqislTsHHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Where is that documented? I've just gone through this with a client
>>>> and turning it off was the cure.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Fred
>>>> Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
>>>> news:OB76p9EsHHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> The opportunistic locking problem in Windows was fixed a couple years
>>>>> ago. Turning it off can really hurt performance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dan Freeman" <spam@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Oc9psN3rHHA.4888@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Turn off opportuniatic locking in Windows. Turn off virus scanning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have hundreds of clients across the US ranging from 5 users to
>>>>>> hundreds of users. They complain about a lot of things, but not this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Younger wrote:
>>>>>>> Have you tried it on your network to see what results you get?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have a great network here and it appears, the clients network is
>>>>>>> pretty good as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:OtSmvavrHHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations
>>>>>>>>> on a network and see what results you get?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still think it's the networking: bad network cards/hubs, dns, ..
>>>>>>>> or is it the firewall and anti-virus tools??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> iTech Consulting Services Limited
>>>>>>>> Expert in ePOS (Point-Of-Sales) solutions
>>>>>>>> Website: http://www.itech.com.hk (IE only)
>>>>>>>> Tel: (852)2325 3883 Fax: (852)2325 8288
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Cy
Tue Jun 19 01:34:01 CDT 2007

David Younger wrote:
> I dont think it is the network.
>
> The speed delay occurs even if I hold the tables open on different machines.
> We have a very good network here.
>
> I have disabled antivirus for dbf, fpt and cdx files on server and
> workstation so this is ot it. And even if it was, the speed delay would then
> occur when being the first person to open the files.
>
> Also the table is very simple with only 94 records and no deleted records.
>
> Cheers
> David
>
>
> "Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OtSmvavrHHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> I would encourage you or anyone else to try this on 2 workstations on a
>>> network and see what results you