Paul McNett wrote:I found the opposite: We use direct and indirect
(lots of local views) table access and were having a ton of corruption
problems on a NT4 server with only a handful of users in the system. I
literally had to reindex every night, and I was never confident that data
didn't tu
NT had a big problem with VFP. I think one of the later SP's had the dreaded
write ahead cache and didn't tell anyone. I had tables going missing doing
reindex and all kinds of stuff.
Al
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul McNett
I foun
I too use only local viewws in all tables. My server is using
SQL 2003, three shops, maybe 20 or more people accessing no
problem anymore. With a win98 network it didn't work.
My problem now is with credits card and it's dedicated net,
in intensive operations it's loosing data with 2027 error.
Th
Michael Madigan wrote:
> Well I use direct table access and since Windows 98, we've never has any
> corruption. It seems all corruption in the past has all been related to
> hardware.
I found the opposite: We use direct and indirect (lots of local views)
table access and were having a ton of c
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05:13 PM 9/5/2008 -0700, Michael Madigan wrote:
>>Well I use direct table access and since Windows 98, we've never has any
>>corruption. It seems all corruption in the past has all been related to
>>hardware.
>
> ...
>
At 05:13 PM 9/5/2008 -0700, Michael Madigan wrote:
>Well I use direct table access and since Windows 98, we've never has any
>corruption. It seems all corruption in the past has all been related to
>hardware.
...
Yep yep. I imagine it's not quite so fragile as people tend to think. But
usuall
Well I use direct table access and since Windows 98, we've never has any
corruption. It seems all corruption in the past has all been related to
hardware.
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Su
Charlie Coleman wrote:
> At 09:23 AM 9/5/2008 -0400, MB Software Solutions General Account wrote:
>
>> On Thu, September 4, 2008 11:23 pm, KAM.covad wrote:
>>
>>> All the responses are good. You will always get better performance with
>>> one user, that is a given. But I have installations with as
At 09:23 AM 9/5/2008 -0400, MB Software Solutions General Account wrote:
>On Thu, September 4, 2008 11:23 pm, KAM.covad wrote:
> > All the responses are good. You will always get better performance with
> > one user, that is a given. But I have installations with as many as 80
...
>I came across o
On Thu, September 4, 2008 11:23 pm, KAM.covad wrote:
> All the responses are good. You will always get better performance with
> one user, that is a given. But I have installations with as many as 80
> simultaneous users with VFP9 SP1. Actually over 250 but I don't think
> more than 80-90 ever conn
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:17:14 -0400, "Michael Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>
> Just looking for some ideas about increasing performance on a network.
>
>
Assuming all your VFP code is in order with regards to optimized queries
etx ...
If you have Norton/Symantec ensure the scanning of netwo
users.
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, KAM.covad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: KAM.covad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Speed issues - multiuser application
> To: "ProFox Email List"
> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 11:23 PM
> A
m: "MB Software Solutions General Account" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ProFox Email List"
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Speed issues - multiuser application
Gil Hale wrote:
>
>
> All that said, the difference in performance on the P75 machines
Gil Hale wrote:
>
>
> All that said, the difference in performance on the P75 machines was
> noticeable in terms of a few seconds (like 3 seconds instead of 1 second for
> some processes). I never saw multi-user access result in a
> seconds-become-minutes impact. You aren't running under Vista a
://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/4236924
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Gil Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Gil Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Speed issues - multiuser application
> To: profox@leafe.com
> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 6:20 PM
> Excellent t
September 04, 2008 6:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Speed issues - multiuser application
>
>
> It's almost with 100% likely to be your anti-virus software
> scanning network drives. Disable the anti-virus software from
> scanning your network drive and that s
Back in the days of VFP3 I had noticed the tables on a multi-user solution
were noticeable snappier when a single user was accessing them for read or
write purposes, as opposed to when additional users were accessing the
tables. I did not notice any appreciable difference between 2 and > 2 usrs,
a
> Subject: RE: Speed issues - multiuser application
> To: profox@leafe.com
> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 5:42 PM
> Some points to look for
> Is the app being run from a server ? Does it open data on
> load ? Have you
> tried it from other machines in case it's a nic
Some points to look for
Is the app being run from a server ? Does it open data on load ? Have you
tried it from other machines in case it's a nic problem?
Allen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Savage
Sent: 04 September 2008 23:17
T
19 matches
Mail list logo
