You could verify the GTM daemon by trying to access Apache or something similar on your linux box to verify it on the network. If Apache (or FTP) is "slow", then concentrate your efforts on the box. If Apache (or FTP) is fast, then concentrate on GTM.
And what are the licensing options for Cache on Linux? Is there a 1-user runtime to help validate system or application? /David. David Sommers, Architect | Dialog Medical -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orion Richardson Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 5:46 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Hardhats-members] Re: Slow CPRS response with Linux/GT.M Thanks all for such quick responses. You are correct in assuming that the network setup woudl be different, but the speed was so noticably different and I'd used the VistA demo from the VA with better performance than my linux machine with the same CPRS location. That seemed weird. Here's how I have it setup: In the Linux case I'm running CPRS on a laptop (over 802.11b, so 11 mb) connecting to the Linux box which is wired with 100 mb. They are both on the same hub. In the Windows case I'm using the same server machine (dual booting, since I'm just testing right now) again connected with 100 mb. I'm also using CPRS on that same machine, since the free Cache license I have won't support requests other than localhost (I think? If not, please let me know!) What I thought was unusual is that I could connect to the VA demo VistA instance at http://www1.va.gov/CPRSdemo/ and get better results than I did with the linux box. I think options are to: 1. Try the Linux Cache version as someone suggested and see if this makes any difference 2. Maybe try CPRS from the laptop for Windows/Cache if that is allowed with my limited license The performance was so rough that I was even tempted to dive into the separate GT.M-mounted-partition stuff that I read about some where... Thanks again, Orion ------- Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Re: Slow CPRS response with Linux/GT.M versus Windows/Cache... From: "K.S. Bhaskar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:55:03 -0400 Reply-To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net I think Kevin & Greg are right on the right track that the differences are caused by network configurations, but it would help to narrow things down. Especially on an unloaded server, which is what I suspect Orion is running, I would expect no perceptible difference between different MUMPS implementations. Orion, please tell us the details of the configurations you are comparing. Is the difference in establishing the initial connection or in subsequent accesses? What sort of firewall are you running on the two operating systems? Have you tried Cache on Linux? -- Bhaskar ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
