VFP 6 Speed Issues on Network

[Auguy]

I have a VFP6 app running on a brand new server. The app is running really slow. A simple click on a 'Next Rrcord' button takes 15-20 seconds to refresh the form. On the old server it seemed that whenever the 3rd or 4th user signed on to the system, the whole system slowed down. I had attributed this to the old server, but the new one didn't seem to help, in fact it is worse, everyone is now running slow. Many of the forms open 20-25 tables, some have table buffering and some have record buffering, and some of the tables have a couple of hundred thousand records. I've had other apps running at other locations with many more users and records with no problem. Can someone give me a generic list of where I should be looking (Reinstall fox runtimes, Anti-Virus, etc.) Is there a setting on the local computers or the server about the number of file or record locks, or number of files open. Just thinking out load here and searching for anything that might help? Would porting it to VFP 9 help?

Auguy

 

[Mike Lewis]

Auguy,

Anti-virus is certainly a possibility. If the AV is set to check DBF files, it will scan every table every time you open it. Worth looking into.

Upgrading to VFP 9? No, I wouldn't put any reliance on that. If the app is unexpectedly slow, it's better to put your efforts into finding out why.

I would start by loooking at what processing is going on when you open a form or click on Next Record. Are you running any queries, or setting filters, or something like that? If so, check to see what's optimised. If necessary, use the profiling tool, or check the Rushmore optimisation level.

I'm sure others will have some more ideas.

Mike

__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)

My Visual FoxPro site: www.ml-consult.co.uk

 

[baltman]

I've found this helpful to determine the bottlenecks

How do I use Coverage to determine the slow parts of my application? faq184-63

Brian

 

[alvechurchdata]

Anti-virus is certainly a possibility. If the AV is set to check DBF files, it will scan every table every time you open it.

Norton seemed to do this by default and I have seen tremendous improvement in the past by reconfiguring Norton.

I now run Kaspersky and have no problems.

Geoff Franklin

http://www.alvechurchdata.co.uk

 

[GriffMG]

I've seen tremendous improvements by replacing Norton with something less P-I-A!

B-)

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

 

[Mike Lewis]

Geoff,

I have seen tremendous improvement in the past by reconfiguring Norton.

If I remember correctly, you once greatly impressed a client who had spents weeks trying to find out why their application was so slow. You disabled Norton within a few minutes of arriving at the site, and were promptly able to declare the problem solved.

Mike


__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)

My Visual FoxPro site: www.ml-consult.co.uk

 

[GriffMG]

Mike

That *sounds* likely, I don't remember the case you speak of, but then I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast these days (and I don't even eat breakfast!).

B-)

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

 

[Mike Lewis]

Martin,

Actually, it was Geoff I was referring to, not yourself (although I'm sure you frequently impress your clients).

I do take your point about not remembering what you had for breakfast. I can't think why, but that sort of thing seems to be happening to me more and more these days.

Mike

__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)

My Visual FoxPro site: www.ml-consult.co.uk

 

[GriffMG]

Need to take more water with it.

B-)

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

 

[DSummZZZ]

Auguy,
You aren't by chance using any FILTER clauses are you?



-Dave Summers-

Even more Fox stuff at:

http://www.davesummers.net/foxprolinks.htm

 

[Auguy]

No filter clauses on any of the tables with a large amount records. I talked to the network guru and he tells me if he runs it on the server or through terminal server it performs just fine. Nothing has really changed, just a new server.

Auguy

 

[Dan Freeman]

Auguy,

Have network guru double check the NIC settings in Control Panel on their file server.

We once had a client complain of massive slowness, and we found that their whizzbang 10/100Mbit NIC had been throttled to 10Mbit in the control panel.

Once we released the throttle, their remark was priceless: "Wow, EVERYTHING is faster!"

Other things to check would be auto-detecting routers & hubs that are incorrectly detecting 10Mbit. Since it works fine at the console and on a terminal server, it's something in the LAN soup.

 

[cricket]

the new Wow!

 

[alvechurchdata]

You disabled Norton within a few minutes of arriving at the site, and were promptly able to declare the problem solved.

<blush>
My first (and hitherto unreported action) was to ask the lady using the PC if it had always been this slow and she said "Only since we loaded Norton Anti-Virus" ...
</blush>

Geoff Franklin

http://www.alvechurchdata.co.uk

 

[Auguy]

I have read quite about "opportunistic file locking". Does anyone think this could be part of the problem?

 

[Dan Freeman]

OpLocks cause many problems, but generally not related to performance. They cause crashes and corrupted data.

Question: you said terminal services is fast. Is the file server also the terminal server? i.e. is there network I/O between the terminal server and the file server?

I still say this sounds like an I/O problem between the file server and the workstations. In other words, they have clogged pipes.

 

[Auguy]

Yes, the file server is the terminal server. I too think it is some sort of network bottleneck, but the network people think it is my app. I am going to try the following suggestion I found online. Copy a group of files (10MB or so) from the server to a workstation and see how long it takes. If it takes longer than 20 to 30 seconds, then it may be a network problem.

Auguy

 

[Dan Freeman]

Don't get me started on "there's nothing wrong with MY network!" -- I hear that all the time just about the time I prove that the problem IS with "his" network. ;-)

 

[safraser]

I've had a similar problem in the past after one client installed ms exchange on the same server as my app. Moved my app to a differenct server and problem went away

 

[simoncl]

Hello Auguy,

Have read your posting with great interest. I am experiencing similar, although not exactly the same, problems and am wondered whether or not you found a resolve to this issue. Could greatly do with the help.

Speed has become an issue with a multi-user networked application that I have developed for a client. The apparent cause is a result of an extreme increase in network traffic (i.e. increasing from expected average of 0.5% (single user) to 48% (2+ users) utilisation) whenever more than one users are reading & writing the same DBC/tables. The Client's 3rd party hardware support company have done their tests and are putting the cause entirely down to my supplied VFP 8.0 software.

Another baffling thing is that when only 1 user remains, the network traffic utilisation stays at around 48% until the application is closed and restarted.

Furthermore, the simultaneously running 2+ modules on a single pc experience no such problems albeit slightly slower which I would expected from single unit.

Other details;
- VFP 8.0 development.
- Mixture of WIN2K and XP desktops.
- New server (running Windows Server 2003 I think).
- Local views used quite a lot (am considering separating into dedicated localised DBC(s)).
- FoxPro Application Framework in use (partial).
- Am suspecting that “Opportunistic locking” may have something to do with this (no support from hardware people on this hypothesis of course).

Hope that this all makes sense.

Have you (or any other readers) got any ideas?

Thanks,
Simon (first posting)