FWIW, on 4D 16.3 32-bit on MacOS 10.11.x server, using the new network layer caused multiple ghosted users every day. Using 4D 16.3 64-bit server, the ghosting pretty much disappears (one particular user still ends up ghosted multiple times), guess I should check their version of 4D.
Jim Crate > On Apr 21, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> > wrote: > > From everything I've heard, the new architecture will be a huge step forward > in performance, especially for larger deployments. There's no question that > push is better than poll when you have thousands of processes trying to > communicate (or not) with a server. > > I'm really looking forward to flipping the switch -- I think it's really > close in 16.3 HF2. > > > -- > Jeffrey Kain > jeffrey.k...@gmail.com > >> On Apr 21, 2018, at 7:21 AM, Paul Lovejoy via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> >> wrote: >> >> What is spooky is that nobody seems to be 100% behind the ServerNet >> architecture. This means that if we want 64 bit support, we have to go with >> a potentially troublesome network layer. > > ********************************************************************** > 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) > FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html > Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html > Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech > Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com > ********************************************************************** ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **********************************************************************
