Using Native VFP Tables and Network Performance

Hello and thanks in advance for the help.

We are using VFP 7.0 SP1 and native VFP tables. All users are running Win XP
Pro SP2 and our file server is running Win 2003 Server.

We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP apps
open with each app opening up to 40 tables. Most tables have memo fields so
each table opens 3 files. There are some forms with private data sessions
that open their own copies of from 25-30 tables (with memo fields). Some of
these forms are opened and closed repeatedly throughout the day.

Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003 server
as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we are having
network performance issues and it has been suggested that the large number
of open files caused by the configuration that I have outlined could be
impacting network performance severely. Does anyone know if this could be
the case or if there are special configuration issues for Win 2003 Server
that should be applied when using a large number of native VFP tables.

Thank you very much.

Regards,
Jeff

swdev2
Thu Apr 03 18:36:25 CDT 2008

Hi Jeff -

You can tweak yer server, and you can tweak the workstations.
There are methods for both. Stock 'out of the box', you'll need to tweak
that Server!

Have you done any log review from the SysInternals Toolsets ?
If not, you should - Specifically on DiskMon on the Server, and FileMon on
the Workstations, and Process Monitor on Both.
Here - have a Handy-Dandy-MicroSoft-Inspired GUID-based url -
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/0e18b180-9b7a-4c49-8120-c47c
5a693683.aspx

'Large Number of Open Files' , whilst a point about 'network operating
system functionality', is not a problem for a server.
If it is, then the Server People who touch that server are , eh., uh, not
that swift, or the Server is running on minimal hardware with a minimal
configuration.

There's other things to do, but if you need FAST resolution, I suiggest you
engage a tweaking specialist. If FAST RESOLUTION isn't an issue for you,
then hey - at least post the hardware config ?

I'm sure someone here will mention 'virus protection', but I'll let em
explain that one.

Mondo Regards [Bill]
--
===================
William Sanders / EFG VFP / mySql / MS-SQL
www.efgroup.net/vfpwebhosting
www.terrafox.net www.viasqlserver.net

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
news:7rCdnQFHU8jMpGjanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@supernews.com...
> Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
>
> We are using VFP 7.0 SP1 and native VFP tables. All users are running Win
XP
> Pro SP2 and our file server is running Win 2003 Server.
>
> We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP
apps
> open with each app opening up to 40 tables. Most tables have memo fields
so
> each table opens 3 files. There are some forms with private data sessions
> that open their own copies of from 25-30 tables (with memo fields). Some
of
> these forms are opened and closed repeatedly throughout the day.
>
> Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003 server
> as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we are
having
> network performance issues and it has been suggested that the large number
> of open files caused by the configuration that I have outlined could be
> impacting network performance severely. Does anyone know if this could be
> the case or if there are special configuration issues for Win 2003 Server
> that should be applied when using a large number of native VFP tables.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
>
>

Man-wai
Fri Apr 04 05:22:44 CDT 2008

> We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP apps
> Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003 server
> as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we are having

I used to deal with an old FoxPro/DOS app that ran on NetWare with about
150 users. The DBFs and CDXs were on one and only one Netware server.

One thing: I suggest you disable write-caching (hardware and software)
in the Win2003 server unless you have a really reliable electricity backup.


--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.10) Linux 2.6.24.4
^ ^ 18:19:01 up 2 days 23:30 2 users load average: 1.04 1.04 1.05
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/

Jeff
Fri Apr 04 08:25:23 CDT 2008

Thanks for the help. Here is some additional info:

The server that is underperforming is an HP DL-360 with 2 Xeon CPU's at 2.80
Ghz. It has 4Gb of RAM. It has SCSI drives set up as RAID 5 and it has an HP
caching SCSI controller with 128 Mb of RAM. It also has 2 NICs which are
teamed to provide a 2 Gb teamed connection.

The switches are HP Procurve 24 port switches which support 10/100/1000
speeds. There are three switches (all HP Procurve). The servers are all on
the same switch and the work stations are for the most part on one of the
other two switches.

Our web / mail server is running on an HP Server. Our web site is based on
FoxWeb and has 5 channels which is like havig 5 more VFP users hitting the
file server.

My 25 users are running on HP systems with Win XP SP 2. For the most part
they have 512Mb of RAM and 100 Mb NICs. Some people have more RAM and some
people have 1 Gb NICs.

To top it all off we have about 10-15 network printers (mostly HP again) on
the network.

My network guy is pointing to my VFP app and the large number of open file
associated with it and is suggesting that it is severely impacting my
network performance. I am not convinced although I don't know enough about
Windows networking internals to prove him right or wrong.

Neither of us is certain what should be changed in order to improve the
network performance.

My users are not complaining although they would love better performance
from some of the screens.

All of this has come about because we are trying to add Double Take to our
servers to provide on-line data replication to both in-house and off-site
servers. Double Take is not able to transmit its information (espically to
the off-site server) fast enough. It's queue is filling up, and it is
shutting down. This is the problem that has led us to trying to improve the
server performance.

If the issue is VFP and the number of open files I need to know so that I
can consider options. As I look at sessions in File Server Management I am
seeing users with between 50 and 250 open files with 200 being the average.

That should be more about our hardware then you ever wanted to know.

Thank you very much again for your input.

Best Regards,
Jeff

"swdev2" <wsanders@dotnetconversions.bob.com> wrote in message
news:OpLzPqdlIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi Jeff -
>
> You can tweak yer server, and you can tweak the workstations.
> There are methods for both. Stock 'out of the box', you'll need to tweak
> that Server!
>
> Have you done any log review from the SysInternals Toolsets ?
> If not, you should - Specifically on DiskMon on the Server, and FileMon on
> the Workstations, and Process Monitor on Both.
> Here - have a Handy-Dandy-MicroSoft-Inspired GUID-based url -
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/0e18b180-9b7a-4c49-8120-c47c
> 5a693683.aspx
>
> 'Large Number of Open Files' , whilst a point about 'network operating
> system functionality', is not a problem for a server.
> If it is, then the Server People who touch that server are , eh., uh, not
> that swift, or the Server is running on minimal hardware with a minimal
> configuration.
>
> There's other things to do, but if you need FAST resolution, I suiggest
> you
> engage a tweaking specialist. If FAST RESOLUTION isn't an issue for you,
> then hey - at least post the hardware config ?
>
> I'm sure someone here will mention 'virus protection', but I'll let em
> explain that one.
>
> Mondo Regards [Bill]
> --
> ===================
> William Sanders / EFG VFP / mySql / MS-SQL
> www.efgroup.net/vfpwebhosting
> www.terrafox.net www.viasqlserver.net
>
> "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
> news:7rCdnQFHU8jMpGjanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@supernews.com...
>> Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
>>
>> We are using VFP 7.0 SP1 and native VFP tables. All users are running Win
> XP
>> Pro SP2 and our file server is running Win 2003 Server.
>>
>> We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP
> apps
>> open with each app opening up to 40 tables. Most tables have memo fields
> so
>> each table opens 3 files. There are some forms with private data sessions
>> that open their own copies of from 25-30 tables (with memo fields). Some
> of
>> these forms are opened and closed repeatedly throughout the day.
>>
>> Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003
>> server
>> as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we are
> having
>> network performance issues and it has been suggested that the large
>> number
>> of open files caused by the configuration that I have outlined could be
>> impacting network performance severely. Does anyone know if this could be
>> the case or if there are special configuration issues for Win 2003 Server
>> that should be applied when using a large number of native VFP tables.
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Tom
Fri Apr 04 09:30:54 CDT 2008

Do you have a large number of deleted records in any of the tables? Our
ordering website which is 100% VFP code logs new orders to a VFP table to
inform the user there is a new order. The user who monitors the log clicked
the "Clear Log" button on the form. Our website performance went from
sub-second response to 6-20 seconds per response. After I packed the table
the performance was back to normal.

In addition to the above website I have 35 users accessing the same set of
tables through VFP 7 and we have no performance issues.

Tom

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
news:7rCdnQFHU8jMpGjanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@supernews.com...
> Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
>
> We are using VFP 7.0 SP1 and native VFP tables. All users are running Win
> XP Pro SP2 and our file server is running Win 2003 Server.
>
> We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP
> apps open with each app opening up to 40 tables. Most tables have memo
> fields so each table opens 3 files. There are some forms with private data
> sessions that open their own copies of from 25-30 tables (with memo
> fields). Some of these forms are opened and closed repeatedly throughout
> the day.
>
> Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003 server
> as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we are
> having network performance issues and it has been suggested that the large
> number of open files caused by the configuration that I have outlined
> could be impacting network performance severely. Does anyone know if this
> could be the case or if there are special configuration issues for Win
> 2003 Server that should be applied when using a large number of native VFP
> tables.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
>
>

swdev2
Fri Apr 04 11:10:02 CDT 2008

Jeff - I'll try to write up a more detailed response later this weekend -
but -

Tell your Network Guy to add in ONE more NIC on 'that' server, and use
SEGMENTING of ethernet traffic,
so that the server to Double Take connection looks like this:

[Server]-->{3rd nic} --> [separate hub] --> [Double Take Server or portal].

DO NOT mix 'regular' network traffic with Double Take Traffic -
Segment it all, add in additional NICS to SERVERS , segment the traffic.
If this means adding in an additional hub /switch to ensure there is no
mixing, then do it.
The [seperate hub] above should ONLY handle Double Take Traffic, and NOTHING
ELSE.
Make sure it's all 1000 mb NICS/hub for that seperate segment.
(There's OS tweaking to do, I'll cover that later, but only becomes useful
if you refuse to segment the traffic).

Regards [Bill]


--
===================
William Sanders / EFG VFP / mySql / MS-SQL
www.efgroup.net/vfpwebhosting
www.terrafox.net www.viasqlserver.net

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
news:IO-dnQwDFfTesWvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> Thanks for the help. Here is some additional info:
>
> The server that is underperforming is an HP DL-360 with 2 Xeon CPU's at
2.80
> Ghz. It has 4Gb of RAM. It has SCSI drives set up as RAID 5 and it has an
HP
> caching SCSI controller with 128 Mb of RAM. It also has 2 NICs which are
> teamed to provide a 2 Gb teamed connection.
>
> The switches are HP Procurve 24 port switches which support 10/100/1000
> speeds. There are three switches (all HP Procurve). The servers are all on
> the same switch and the work stations are for the most part on one of the
> other two switches.
>
> Our web / mail server is running on an HP Server. Our web site is based on
> FoxWeb and has 5 channels which is like havig 5 more VFP users hitting the
> file server.
>
> My 25 users are running on HP systems with Win XP SP 2. For the most part
> they have 512Mb of RAM and 100 Mb NICs. Some people have more RAM and some

> people have 1 Gb NICs.
>
> To top it all off we have about 10-15 network printers (mostly HP again)
on
> the network.
>
> My network guy is pointing to my VFP app and the large number of open file
> associated with it and is suggesting that it is severely impacting my
> network performance. I am not convinced although I don't know enough about
> Windows networking internals to prove him right or wrong.
>
> Neither of us is certain what should be changed in order to improve the
> network performance.
>
> My users are not complaining although they would love better performance
> from some of the screens.
>
> All of this has come about because we are trying to add Double Take to our
> servers to provide on-line data replication to both in-house and off-site
> servers. Double Take is not able to transmit its information (espically to
> the off-site server) fast enough. It's queue is filling up, and it is
> shutting down. This is the problem that has led us to trying to improve
the
> server performance.
>
> If the issue is VFP and the number of open files I need to know so that I
> can consider options. As I look at sessions in File Server Management I am
> seeing users with between 50 and 250 open files with 200 being the
average.
>
> That should be more about our hardware then you ever wanted to know.
>
> Thank you very much again for your input.
>
> Best Regards,
> Jeff
>
> "swdev2" <wsanders@dotnetconversions.bob.com> wrote in message
> news:OpLzPqdlIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Jeff -
> >
> > You can tweak yer server, and you can tweak the workstations.
> > There are methods for both. Stock 'out of the box', you'll need to tweak
> > that Server!
> >
> > Have you done any log review from the SysInternals Toolsets ?
> > If not, you should - Specifically on DiskMon on the Server, and FileMon
on
> > the Workstations, and Process Monitor on Both.
> > Here - have a Handy-Dandy-MicroSoft-Inspired GUID-based url -
> >
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/0e18b180-9b7a-4c49-8120-c47c
> > 5a693683.aspx
> >
> > 'Large Number of Open Files' , whilst a point about 'network operating
> > system functionality', is not a problem for a server.
> > If it is, then the Server People who touch that server are , eh., uh,
not
> > that swift, or the Server is running on minimal hardware with a minimal
> > configuration.
> >
> > There's other things to do, but if you need FAST resolution, I suiggest
> > you
> > engage a tweaking specialist. If FAST RESOLUTION isn't an issue for
you,
> > then hey - at least post the hardware config ?
> >
> > I'm sure someone here will mention 'virus protection', but I'll let em
> > explain that one.
> >
> > Mondo Regards [Bill]
> > --
> > ===================
> > William Sanders / EFG VFP / mySql / MS-SQL
> > www.efgroup.net/vfpwebhosting
> > www.terrafox.net www.viasqlserver.net
> >
> > "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
> > news:7rCdnQFHU8jMpGjanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@supernews.com...
> >> Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
> >>
> >> We are using VFP 7.0 SP1 and native VFP tables. All users are running
Win
> > XP
> >> Pro SP2 and our file server is running Win 2003 Server.
> >>
> >> We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP
> > apps
> >> open with each app opening up to 40 tables. Most tables have memo
fields
> > so
> >> each table opens 3 files. There are some forms with private data
sessions
> >> that open their own copies of from 25-30 tables (with memo fields).
Some
> > of
> >> these forms are opened and closed repeatedly throughout the day.
> >>
> >> Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003
> >> server
> >> as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we are
> > having
> >> network performance issues and it has been suggested that the large
> >> number
> >> of open files caused by the configuration that I have outlined could be
> >> impacting network performance severely. Does anyone know if this could
be
> >> the case or if there are special configuration issues for Win 2003
Server
> >> that should be applied when using a large number of native VFP tables.
> >>
> >> Thank you very much.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Dan
Fri Apr 04 10:43:21 CDT 2008

Jeff Grippe wrote:
> My network guy is pointing to my VFP app and the large number of open
> file associated with it and is suggesting that it is severely
> impacting my network performance. I am not convinced although I don't
> know enough about Windows networking internals to prove him right or
> wrong.

Our network guys are constantly harping on that as well. I usually reply "so
you're telling me that the networks we had in DOS 15 years ago were better
performers than Windows?"

It usually shuts them up.

Dan

Jeff
Fri Apr 04 10:55:47 CDT 2008

I just sent a similar message to my guy. I explained that I've had many
users hitting 80386 based servers with 10Mb NICS with great performance. If
you really want blinding speed, you really can't beat the DOS apps. As good
as VFP has gotten, I've tested 2.6 DOS against VFP 7 SP 1 on the same
(Novell) server for database intensive operations. 2.6 DOS kills.

But now I'm totally out of the DOS world and I'm using Win 2003 servers. I
have no idea what is happening at the server. I suspect that VFP is quite
well behaved because there wouldn't be any reason not to be. It's speed is
one of its great strengths. I don't think we could achieve that great speed
if we were killing the network resources.

BUT, I don't have the technical knowledge to explain that to the network
guy.

Jeff

"Dan Freeman" <spam@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:es%23SdqmlIHA.2368@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>> My network guy is pointing to my VFP app and the large number of open
>> file associated with it and is suggesting that it is severely
>> impacting my network performance. I am not convinced although I don't
>> know enough about Windows networking internals to prove him right or
>> wrong.
>
> Our network guys are constantly harping on that as well. I usually reply
> "so you're telling me that the networks we had in DOS 15 years ago were
> better performers than Windows?"
>
> It usually shuts them up.
>
> Dan
>

Jeff
Fri Apr 04 10:59:12 CDT 2008

We don't have a VFP performance problem.

I have a network guy who says he can't get Double Take to work reliably
because he thinks that VFP is killing the network performance.

I posted the question here to see if anyone knows if that's true.

For my table that might have a large number of deleted records between
packs, I have an index tag whose key is DELETED(). In the old days, this was
necessary for Rushmore to optimize queries. I don't know if it still is but
I see no reason to remove the tag.

Thanks
Jeff

"Tom Libby" <tlibby@bigblue-usa.com> wrote in message
news:OWJlACmlIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Do you have a large number of deleted records in any of the tables? Our
> ordering website which is 100% VFP code logs new orders to a VFP table to
> inform the user there is a new order. The user who monitors the log
> clicked the "Clear Log" button on the form. Our website performance went
> from sub-second response to 6-20 seconds per response. After I packed the
> table the performance was back to normal.
>
> In addition to the above website I have 35 users accessing the same set of
> tables through VFP 7 and we have no performance issues.
>
> Tom
>
> "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
> news:7rCdnQFHU8jMpGjanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@supernews.com...
>> Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
>>
>> We are using VFP 7.0 SP1 and native VFP tables. All users are running Win
>> XP Pro SP2 and our file server is running Win 2003 Server.
>>
>> We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP
>> apps open with each app opening up to 40 tables. Most tables have memo
>> fields so each table opens 3 files. There are some forms with private
>> data sessions that open their own copies of from 25-30 tables (with memo
>> fields). Some of these forms are opened and closed repeatedly throughout
>> the day.
>>
>> Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003
>> server as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we
>> are having network performance issues and it has been suggested that the
>> large number of open files caused by the configuration that I have
>> outlined could be impacting network performance severely. Does anyone
>> know if this could be the case or if there are special configuration
>> issues for Win 2003 Server that should be applied when using a large
>> number of native VFP tables.
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Anders
Fri Apr 04 11:24:43 CDT 2008

Try the new (VFP9) BINARY version of indexes on logical values. It cuts the
index file size considerably

-Anders

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
news:SNOdnYWRYsvNzWvanZ2dnUVZ_ryqnZ2d@supernews.com...
> We don't have a VFP performance problem.
>
> I have a network guy who says he can't get Double Take to work reliably
> because he thinks that VFP is killing the network performance.
>
> I posted the question here to see if anyone knows if that's true.
>
> For my table that might have a large number of deleted records between
> packs, I have an index tag whose key is DELETED(). In the old days, this
> was necessary for Rushmore to optimize queries. I don't know if it still
> is but I see no reason to remove the tag.
>
> Thanks
> Jeff
>
> "Tom Libby" <tlibby@bigblue-usa.com> wrote in message
> news:OWJlACmlIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Do you have a large number of deleted records in any of the tables? Our
>> ordering website which is 100% VFP code logs new orders to a VFP table to
>> inform the user there is a new order. The user who monitors the log
>> clicked the "Clear Log" button on the form. Our website performance went
>> from sub-second response to 6-20 seconds per response. After I packed the
>> table the performance was back to normal.
>>
>> In addition to the above website I have 35 users accessing the same set
>> of tables through VFP 7 and we have no performance issues.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
>> news:7rCdnQFHU8jMpGjanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
>>>
>>> We are using VFP 7.0 SP1 and native VFP tables. All users are running
>>> Win XP Pro SP2 and our file server is running Win 2003 Server.
>>>
>>> We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP
>>> apps open with each app opening up to 40 tables. Most tables have memo
>>> fields so each table opens 3 files. There are some forms with private
>>> data sessions that open their own copies of from 25-30 tables (with memo
>>> fields). Some of these forms are opened and closed repeatedly throughout
>>> the day.
>>>
>>> Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003
>>> server as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we
>>> are having network performance issues and it has been suggested that the
>>> large number of open files caused by the configuration that I have
>>> outlined could be impacting network performance severely. Does anyone
>>> know if this could be the case or if there are special configuration
>>> issues for Win 2003 Server that should be applied when using a large
>>> number of native VFP tables.
>>>
>>> Thank you very much.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

tg
Fri Apr 04 15:35:31 CDT 2008

Jeff Grippe schrieb:
> I just sent a similar message to my guy. I explained that I've had many
> users hitting 80386 based servers with 10Mb NICS with great performance. If
> you really want blinding speed, you really can't beat the DOS apps. As good
> as VFP has gotten, I've tested 2.6 DOS against VFP 7 SP 1 on the same
> (Novell) server for database intensive operations. 2.6 DOS kills.
>
> But now I'm totally out of the DOS world and I'm using Win 2003 servers. I
> have no idea what is happening at the server. I suspect that VFP is quite
> well behaved because there wouldn't be any reason not to be. It's speed is
> one of its great strengths. I don't think we could achieve that great speed
> if we were killing the network resources.
>
> BUT, I don't have the technical knowledge to explain that to the network
> guy.

Read up on Oplocks, SharingViolationRetries, SharingViolationTimeout..
or was it SharingViolationDelay ? IAC, Microsoft tries very hard to make
file server databases perform lousy compared to 15 years ago. But as
these Key words can be found in MS knowledge base, it might help with
the network guy. It is ridiculous that some network calls "revibrate" in
current default settings. No wonder it floods the network.

regards

thomas

Gene
Fri Apr 04 17:36:46 CDT 2008

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote:

>We don't have a VFP performance problem.
>
>I have a network guy who says he can't get Double Take to work reliably
>because he thinks that VFP is killing the network performance.

Tell him to quit thinking that VFP is killing the network
performance. <BEG>

(Unless it is measured, it is just a guess.)

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

Paul
Sat Apr 05 02:34:33 CDT 2008

There are posts on fox.wikis.com that have analysed this subject to death.
Here are a couple of design ideas:
Ultimately, passing data and indexes across a network is not a good thing.
Sometimes unavoidable but still not a good thing. It is fairly simple to
test, just sit at the server and run the application there is no way you
will get the same data performance on one of the workstations. That is why
Terminal Services is such a great thing for VFP apps that don't use a
client-server model, but it does require sufficient resources on the server
to handle the user sessions.
Take the tables that don't change and create a startup system that checks
for the 'static' tables (existence, date/time) on the local machines and
pulls new versions from the server. That way the only data that is moving
across the network is the data that is likely to change.
If you are using SQL for all your db requests then you could move to a
client-server model where only the result set is passed across the network
such as SQL server. Or you could use VFP in a distributed computing model
where a VFP service is on the server receving requests and sending out
results. To my understanding it is really the indexes that chew up the
network bandwidth.
The best results are found in a thin client app (such as a web app) because
the server only works when it has to, unfortunately that usually involves a
complete rewrite of the interface.

Hope that helps.

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
news:7rCdnQFHU8jMpGjanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@supernews.com...
> Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
>
> We are using VFP 7.0 SP1 and native VFP tables. All users are running Win
> XP Pro SP2 and our file server is running Win 2003 Server.
>
> We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP
> apps open with each app opening up to 40 tables. Most tables have memo
> fields so each table opens 3 files. There are some forms with private data
> sessions that open their own copies of from 25-30 tables (with memo
> fields). Some of these forms are opened and closed repeatedly throughout
> the day.
>
> Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003 server
> as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we are
> having network performance issues and it has been suggested that the large
> number of open files caused by the configuration that I have outlined
> could be impacting network performance severely. Does anyone know if this
> could be the case or if there are special configuration issues for Win
> 2003 Server that should be applied when using a large number of native VFP
> tables.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
>
>

Man-wai
Sat Apr 05 23:30:06 CDT 2008


> I have a network guy who says he can't get Double Take to work reliably
> because he thinks that VFP is killing the network performance.
> I posted the question here to see if anyone knows if that's true.

Server-side virus scanner scanning Foxpro files (*.DBF, *.CDX, *.FRX,
*.APP, *.FXP, ...)?

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.10) Linux 2.6.24.4
^ ^ 12:28:01 up 4 days 17:39 1 user load average: 1.16 1.05 1.01
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/

Man-wai
Sat Apr 05 23:31:04 CDT 2008

> I have a network guy who says he can't get Double Take to work reliably
> because he thinks that VFP is killing the network performance.
> I posted the question here to see if anyone knows if that's true.

Server running an 3D screen saver? :)

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.10) Linux 2.6.24.4
^ ^ 12:29:01 up 4 days 17:40 1 user load average: 1.06 1.04 1.00
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/

tom
Mon Apr 07 05:47:28 CDT 2008

Hi,

our network guy is reading this and laughing.
Your numbers are not so not much (compared to some of our apps :-).
A server here handles a VFP8 prog. with 80 Users , each 40-50 files opened
(and wordfiles, and ftp,,and email, and....)

I would suggest the following check :
Ask the users to stop all other software for the test.
Login and let one user after the other start work and see whether
performance of the fox app. becomes significantly (!) worse and worse.
Try to log, whats hapening ion the net (trafic, collisions,..), it could be
a "damaged" network controller card resulting in collision issues.

Other trafic issues resulting in small performance :
Printing big files (like powerpoint, could be 150 MB for 10 pages)
Massive internet use (surfing, mails with big attachements, live streams)
there are tools to measure network traffic snd show them in nice graphs
(e.g.:netman)

If only the fox network performance is an issue
Antivirus is always woth to be shut down on foxpro data.
I remember an old advice to make the exe read only and to have the DBC (if
not only free tables) locally generated on a local drive,



HTH
Tom


"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7rCdnQFHU8jMpGjanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@supernews.com...
> Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
>
> We are using VFP 7.0 SP1 and native VFP tables. All users are running Win
> XP Pro SP2 and our file server is running Win 2003 Server.
>
> We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP
> apps open with each app opening up to 40 tables. Most tables have memo
> fields so each table opens 3 files. There are some forms with private data
> sessions that open their own copies of from 25-30 tables (with memo
> fields). Some of these forms are opened and closed repeatedly throughout
> the day.
>
> Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003 server
> as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we are
> having network performance issues and it has been suggested that the large
> number of open files caused by the configuration that I have outlined
> could be impacting network performance severely. Does anyone know if this
> could be the case or if there are special configuration issues for Win
> 2003 Server that should be applied when using a large number of native VFP
> tables.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
>
>

tg
Mon Apr 07 12:15:06 CDT 2008

tom knauf schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> our network guy is reading this and laughing.
> Your numbers are not so not much (compared to some of our apps :-).
> A server here handles a VFP8 prog. with 80 Users , each 40-50 files opened
> (and wordfiles, and ftp,,and email, and....)

The "old" network settings allow much better fileserver-based db access
than the things set in todays systems. Sad, but true - you either have
one of the still good working setups or a smart network guy <g>.

Michael
Tue Apr 08 20:22:00 CDT 2008

Hi Jeff.

Make sure you are running the apps locally and not off the server. HTH

Mike



"Jeff Grippe" wrote:

> Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
>
> We are using VFP 7.0 SP1 and native VFP tables. All users are running Win XP
> Pro SP2 and our file server is running Win 2003 Server.
>
> We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP apps
> open with each app opening up to 40 tables. Most tables have memo fields so
> each table opens 3 files. There are some forms with private data sessions
> that open their own copies of from 25-30 tables (with memo fields). Some of
> these forms are opened and closed repeatedly throughout the day.
>
> Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003 server
> as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we are having
> network performance issues and it has been suggested that the large number
> of open files caused by the configuration that I have outlined could be
> impacting network performance severely. Does anyone know if this could be
> the case or if there are special configuration issues for Win 2003 Server
> that should be applied when using a large number of native VFP tables.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
>
>
>

Jeff
Wed Apr 09 08:42:01 CDT 2008

Hi Mike,

I do run the apps locally. I do this because I have devised a system where I
can update the apps in an installation folder on the server. The application
checks the folder during startup to make sure it is running the latest
version of itself and any needed activex controls, dlls, etc. If anything is
updated or added, it is copied to the local system before the application is
started.

My next thought is to move all of the static data to local machines as well.
Over 75% of the data in the tables does not change. I'm thinking of making
that local as well.

Jeff
"Michael" <Michael@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9E5A3A09-B978-4CB9-BFD1-5913D9724C7C@microsoft.com...
> Hi Jeff.
>
> Make sure you are running the apps locally and not off the server. HTH
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> "Jeff Grippe" wrote:
>
>> Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
>>
>> We are using VFP 7.0 SP1 and native VFP tables. All users are running Win
>> XP
>> Pro SP2 and our file server is running Win 2003 Server.
>>
>> We are running a network with about 30 users. Each user has 3 or 4 VFP
>> apps
>> open with each app opening up to 40 tables. Most tables have memo fields
>> so
>> each table opens 3 files. There are some forms with private data sessions
>> that open their own copies of from 25-30 tables (with memo fields). Some
>> of
>> these forms are opened and closed repeatedly throughout the day.
>>
>> Are there any performance issues with using VFP tables and Win 2003
>> server
>> as I have outlined above? We are attempting to figure out why we are
>> having
>> network performance issues and it has been suggested that the large
>> number
>> of open files caused by the configuration that I have outlined could be
>> impacting network performance severely. Does anyone know if this could be
>> the case or if there are special configuration issues for Win 2003 Server
>> that should be applied when using a large number of native VFP tables.
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>

Paul
Tue Apr 22 11:22:55 CDT 2008

"Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in
news:#8Xv42jlIHA.2304@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
>
> One thing: I suggest you disable write-caching (hardware and software)
> in the Win2003 server unless you have a really reliable electricity
> backup.

Yes, I second that. Sure helps keep file corruption down.
Disable it on workstations too.

------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lee ........ Abri Technologies ........ http://www.abri.com/
'Recover' - top rated FoxPro file repair utility.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Paul
Wed Apr 23 11:43:41 CDT 2008


"Paul Lee" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
news:Xns9A8873E4224F4JD0MS@207.46.248.16...
> "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:#8Xv42jlIHA.2304@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
>>
>> One thing: I suggest you disable write-caching (hardware and software)
>> in the Win2003 server unless you have a really reliable electricity
>> backup.
>
> Yes, I second that. Sure helps keep file corruption down.
> Disable it on workstations too.
>

I seem to remember reading somewhere that MS strongly recommends against
doing that, for performance reasons.

Dan
Wed Apr 23 11:52:33 CDT 2008

Paul Pedersen wrote:
> "Paul Lee" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A8873E4224F4JD0MS@207.46.248.16...
>> "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:#8Xv42jlIHA.2304@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
>>>
>>> One thing: I suggest you disable write-caching (hardware and
>>> software) in the Win2003 server unless you have a really reliable
>>> electricity backup.
>>
>> Yes, I second that. Sure helps keep file corruption down.
>> Disable it on workstations too.
>>
>
> I seem to remember reading somewhere that MS strongly recommends
> against doing that, for performance reasons.

So much so that installing service packs tends to turn it back on.

But I'd prefer stable data, and I've never seen a performance difference.

Dan

Alan
Tue May 27 08:18:06 CDT 2008

On Apr 24, 12:43=A0am, "Paul Pedersen" <nos...@no.spam> wrote:
> "Paul Lee" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9A8873E4224F4JD0MS@207.46.248.16...
>
> > "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toy...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:#8Xv42jlIHA.2304@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
>
> >> One thing: I suggest you disable write-caching (hardware and software)
> >> in the Win2003 server unless you have a really reliable electricity
> >> backup.
>
> > Yes, I second that. Sure helps keep file corruption down.
> > Disable it on workstations too.
>
> I seem to remember reading somewhere that MS strongly recommends against
> doing that, for performance reasons.

Backup the database is rather important. And so is updating your anti-
virus program in time. I just got my dbf file corrupted by virus
without any backup. I have to look for professional services and
finally used a tool called Advanced DBF Repair to repair my DBF
database. It is a powerful tool and worked well, but it is not free.
Now I will backup my database everyday. By the way, that tool's
website is http://www.datanumen.com/adr/ Maybe someone will need it,
too.