VFP and Network-Attached Storage (NAS) 1

[Mike Lewis]

I have an application running at a client's site. It uses DBF files which reside on a conventional file server.

For reasons that are not relevant here, the client wants to transfer the files to a network-attached storage (NAS) device.

My question is: Will my record- and file-locking continue to work with this device? My understandings is that a NAS device is essentially a hard disk which is attached directly to the network. Given that it has no operating system, how can it respond to requests for locks?

If anyone can throw some light on this, I'd be grateful.

Mike


__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)

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

 

[GriffMG]

Hi Mike,

The NAS works pretty much as a share.

The individual makes/models differ a bit, but so long as he has a 'named' unit he will be ok.

If he's trying to get away with a 'noname' unit you could have problems - they tend to use a naf bit of firmware that cannot be relied on in a commercial environment.

If you have any problems, they will be to do with the hardware emulating M$ and the dreaded op locking. Turn it off and so far as VFP is concerned, the file is on a network share.

Good luck.


Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

 

[Mike Lewis]

Thanks for that, Martin. I'll ask the client for more details of the device. I'll also make sure we test the multi-user aspects of my application once he's made the change.

Mike


__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)

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

 

[Mike Lewis]

Just to wrap this topic up ...

I carried out some multi-user tests on the NAS device today, and it passed them all. All my application's usual file- and record-locking worked just as they always have.

The device in question is a Buffalo drive (a TeraStation, I believe, but I'm not certain about that). The client's IT guy didn't do anything special to configure it, apart from setting it up as a RAID 5 drive.

The reason he was testing this drive was because he thought it would improve the performance of the application -- and he was dead right. Since switching from a traditional file server to this NAS device, we've seen a very useful gain in performance. I haven't done any objective tests, but tasks that took several seconds before now take just a second or so.

I am posting this in the hope it might be useful for other developers who are considering this type of device.

Mike


__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)

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

 

[GriffMG]

That's because the Buffallo boxes run Linux which has MUCH faster shar performance!

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

 

[Mike Lewis]

Martin,

I didn't know that. It's worth remembering.

Mike


__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)

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

 

[GriffMG]

If you use windows style sharing on any Linux box the performance is so much better than a standard server - it has no graphics overhead to fuss with...

One thing with the Buffalo boxes, you mustn't let them get full - if you do, you lose the lot. I have no idea why, but a full Buffalo unit will not let you manage it properly - you lose all the data and have to do a total hardware reset - you can't delete the files or anything.

THAT is well worth remembering!

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing