Thanks for chicking this Neil, The ISP stated that administering the server got considerably slower after starting the SMUS. I'm not sure, but I _think_ they mean administering via a www/ browser interface.
I still sounds fishy though. -A. >I just tried it out on my own system and it does indeed show that it >is using 98% of the CPU. I don't think that's true tho'. My system >runs just fine with the MUS running. >Maybe it's like older versions of Director that would report using >100% of the CPU when in fact it wasn't. I wonder if this is known by >MM. > >...Neil > >At 02:36 PM 8/20/2002 +0200, you wrote: >>Sigh... >> >>My ISP accepted to run SMUS 3.0, but when they realized it takes >>98% processor on a Windows 2000, PIII 1GHz they removed it. This is >>with NO traffic at all - just running the server. >> >>It seems odd. When I run it on a Mac on my LAN it doesn't affect >>the performance of the computer at all. I would rather say it's >>very lean. >> >>-A. > >[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go >to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the >list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email >[EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with >programming Lingo. Thanks!] [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
