VisionFS

[tomw]

I am running a Cobol app via a runtime compiler and serving it up to Win9x clients over TCP/IP using VisionFS version 3 on a UnixWare 7.1.1 server.<br><br>VisionFS works great as far as access and printer setups, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is very easy to configure in that regard, but I have a performance problem...<br><br>One aspect of my application is a service management module that our customer service department is in and out of all day long, every day.&nbsp;&nbsp;There is one routine in that module that used to take about 1.5 to 4.0 seconds to complete when we were connecting via Telnet, using terminal emulation.&nbsp;&nbsp;Now, through VisionFS, that same action takes anywhere from 40 seconds to 2-1/4 minutes!!!!<br><br>Does anyone have any performance data on VisionFS, or better yet, performance tuning ideas, or hints???<br><br>I have d/l'd and printed the Vision manual from SCO, and experimented with using opportunistic file locks, but it had no impact on my performance.&nbsp;&nbsp;That was the only idea I could find from them on VisionFS performance.<br><br>All other aspects seem to be OK...more sluggish than Telnet over TCP/IP, but robust enough to be imperceptible to the users.<br><br>By the way, the server is a Dual PII-400, w/256MB PC-100 SDRAM and an adaptec RAID array using IBM SCSI Ultra2-LVD drives.&nbsp;&nbsp;The server never gets maxed out...I'm wondering how much client side activity occurs with the vision product. <br><br>Client CPU/RAM's range from 120Mhz/16MB up to 500Mhz/128MB.&nbsp;&nbsp;350's and above average about 40 seconds to a minute, and the 233's about a minute and a half, with the 120's taking the 2 minute route.<br><br>Two, or even one minute is a long time to wait when your just watching it, and waiting....<br><br>Thanks in advance for any ideas...<br> <p>Tom Whitehead<br><a href=mailto:twhitehead@commeq.com>twhitehead@commeq.com</a><br><a href= > </a><br>

 

[Crazza]

Tom,<br><br>I can't add much to aid your performance problems but I just thought I'd mention that we were toying with using VisionFS and then decided to go with Samba as the price was so good (i.e it's free!)<br><br>I've found it pretty easy to use and configure, it has seamless connectivity with Win 9X machines and the performance has been good.<br><br>If you've no luck with getting answers to your queries, it might be worth a try.<br><br>(See <A HREF="

http://www.samba.org"

TARGET="_new">

http://www.samba.org</A>

if you want to download it.)<br><br>Cheers<br><br>Craig Shepherd<br><br>

 

[tomw]

Thanks Craig...I have a copy of Samba waiting in the wings, just reluctant to get on a new learning curve.&nbsp;&nbsp;But, I am probably gonna take a run at that next week as the performance of this critical app under VisionFS is just unacceptable.&nbsp;&nbsp;Thanks for the heads-up on Samba though. <p>Tom Whitehead<br><a href=mailto:twhitehead@commeq.com>twhitehead@commeq.com</a><br><a href= > </a><br>