By chance, is something different in the networking configuration different between the Windows 2000 computers that continue to work quickly with ODBC over Novell and the computer that does not? Are you running Novell on IPX, TCP/IP, or both? If IPX, what frame type?
For best performance, only bind the protocols necessary for the particular client and put them in the preferred order of access. For example, here is how my workstation is setup for the following configuration:
Background information:
Workstation:
Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional
Servers:
Novell NetWare 4.10 - using only IPX/SPX protocol
Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server - only using TCP/IP protocol
Clients:
Client for Microsoft Networks - part of Windows OS
Novell Client for Windows 4.82 - third party network client from Novell
IBM Client Access Express
Protocols:
TCP/IP - used for Windows and AS/400 only
IPX/SPX (frame type Ethernet 802.2, network 00000002) - used for Novell only
My Network Places -> Properties -> Advanced -> Advanced Settings...
Adapters and Bindings
Connections:
Local Area Connection (or whatever yours is called - this is the default)
Bindings for Local Area Connection:
File and Printer Sharing for Microsoft Networks
X - Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)
� - NWLink IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible Transport Protocol
Client for Microsoft Networks
X - Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)
� - NWLink IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible Transport Protocol
Novell Client for Windows
X - NWLink IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible Transport Protocol
� - Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)
Provider Order
Network providers:
Network Providers
NetWare Services
Microsoft Windows Network
Client Access Network
Print Providers
Netware Print Services
Microsoft Print Services
HTTP Print Services
My Network Places -> Properties -> Local Area Connection -> Properties
General
Componenets checked are used by this connection:
X NWLink IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible Transport Protocol
Internal network number: 00000000
Adapter
Frame type: Ethernet 802.2
Network number: 00000002
Compare your existing settings between your computers and see if there are any differences that might account for a performance difference.
-Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 11:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [sambar] More Musings on dbms and Novell {01}
First, I would like to thank everyone for all the neat leads and good discussion on using Novell drives. But I may be missing the point or I was not clear. Let me reiterate.
Other than the drop in dbms performance, nothing has changed with how the Sambar box accesses a remote Novell drive. Remember, it is not a question of access or authentication, because it did work, and work very well. So the question comes down to performance. Maybe the following "illustration" would help.
This worked initially worked, and for several years, very fast but performance suddenly dropped dramatically: Sambar -> ODBCcache -> ODBCsystem data source -> Novell drive
To regain lightning fast performance I have re-configured to this: Sambar -> ODBCcache - ODBCsystem data source -> local drive
The difference being that all database tables are now on the same box as Sambar. Initially, everything worked with the ODBC system data source configured to map to a remote Novell drive, and it worked lighting fast.
Michael
------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe please go to http://www.sambar.ch/list/
