Network Performance

[nehru]

Re: Network Performance

Ok dave

Arrogance is deadly. Don't compete with your customers.
Each day you get better or worse. It's your choice.
Be aggressive, but not oppressive!

Take an active, not passive, role in helping your community and If you are a veteran, learn from the rookies. Be concerned when you lose, but never feel defeated. Don't confuse efforts with results.

Are you doing the same things this year that you did last year? If so, you are losing ground. I don't waste my energy on negative gossip.

Silence is a necessity, not a negative.

Goodluck

[MRichard]

Re: Network Performance

I am dating a Phillipino lady. She doesn't always listen very well.

Are you sure that you did not discover a simple "feature" that goes with women "in general" ;) ???
Either way, if not, then my wife must be Phillipino as well...

[Tom Henkel]

Re: Network Performance

I've been reading this thread with some interest. Our network is very large with over 200 users and 4 servers. PC's are mostly underpowered XP machines (given to us by the state) and the servers are pretty beefy (we bought them).

We have been using version 5 for years and are now going to version 9. Although we have bought all of the versions between 5 and 9, time tests using our network showed that version 9 has been the only version that can approach version 5 in speed and response speed.

As Ira and others have said, good network and application design are the biggest contributing factor in user response time.

Tom

[nehru]

Re: Network Performance

tom,

clever...200 users using v9? w/no lag on the network.....
how did you test it? install it in 200 users? can you give sample how did you test it? maybe you can help

good for your....maybe....for now.... will see.....


goodluck

[StevenMcLean]

Re: Network Performance

Hi Tom, with 200 users what are you using for your backend? Do you have any screen shots of your front end showing how much detail there is on your forms?

Thanks,

[Tom Henkel]

Re: Network Performance

Steve,

Believe it or not, our back end is still the Alpha native dbf files. We will, at some time look into an SQL back end, but that will take time and time is one resource we are we have little of.

I would love to show many of our screens, but as we are a county welfare agency, the data is sensitive to our clients. It would take a fair amount of cleaning just to get the images to where I can show them.

Typically, we have between 75 and 130 active concurrent users.

Our timing tests were made with copies of the "live" databases in separate directories on the actual live server. We coded a time stamp to the trace window at the "Call" of an application or form, then another timestamp when the app or form loaded. The testing was done from a workstation, and not from a server.

Our servers are wired to one 100 MB switch. There are 100 MB switches on each floor that connect all of the user machines to the server switch. Antivirus software is shut off for the server folders where the application files exist.

Tom
We've been using Alpha software, first alpha4 on a limited basis, then alpha5 v1 where we originally developed thi system, since 1993.

[StevenMcLean]

Re: Network Performance

Hi Tom, I am surprised you are using dfs's. How large are your tables. Are you continually purging data to keep the size down. One issue I have with the powers to be here, is that ALL data and records from day 1 must be available without having to go into archived data. Currently our databases increase by about 10MB per day.

As I work for a Law Firm, I understand the confidentially concern.

Steve

[DaveM]

Re: Network Performance

Steve,

Tom may do different, but I don't build a table with more than 100 or so fields in it. If it is going to be too big, it is split too 2 or more tables. That also depends on what type data is contained in those fields. a 1 to 1 set is the same almost, but the tables remain smaller.

I am also using dbf files almost exclusively.

Nehru,

There is always a lag on any network using any program. I am sure they are talking Alpha5 only and yes, some versions arejust faster than others.



I still believe v3 was the fastest of all, but the features brought out later made me move to v4, 45 and on up. I am not talking about just network wise.


.

[Tom Henkel]

Re: Network Performance

I don't believe we have any tables with more than 50 fields. Most are probably less than 25.

Some of our tables are very large, however, in excess of 500K records.

we use LOTS of sets. We have also broken our applications up int logical pieces so that we don't drag the entire system around when we only need a tiny piece of it.

As I said earlier, the buttons on the main screen represent either a separate database to be loaded, or a subform that has buttons to load other logically grouped separate databases. Our built in security and database level tracking system keeps track of who the user is, where they came from, and where they are going. We allow up to a depth of 10 databases down from the top-level application. I believe we only use at most 3 levels down.

Tom

[DaveM]

Re: Network Performance

tom,

We have also broken our applications up int logical pieces

Smart move! I have done a little of this, but being I am not involved with as many records or users, it is not as needed for me yet. i think it will be in a short time. thanks for putting it into plain english for all who may read this.

.

[cuprowhi]

Re: Network Performance

I accept with information:it never hurts to buy a better server. Server specs with today's OS's should have (in most important to least important);
#1: have a large amount of RAM 2 Gigabyte minimum, 3 Gigabyte is better, more if the OS allows, but probably diminishing returns at about 3 Gigabytes
#2 Fast hard drive system. 2 drives, one for OS, one for application is better than RAID disk system.
#3 Reasonably fast CPU specs. Anything more than 2 cores for desktop applications is probably wasted.

[StevenMcLean]

Re: Network Performance

With dbf's files no processing is done on the server, with fast drives and network throughput, what impact does the server power have?

[csda1]

Re: Network Performance

Hi Steven,

With dbf's files no processing is done on the server, with fast drives and network throughput, what impact does the server power have?

That's not correct.

Read my tips on record locking here. Basically, how fast the server can process the multiple lock requests, do drive seeks (all over the drive for different data requests), and move sector data back and forth to the hard drive is what the server is doing and is all relevant. The weakest link in the chain is typically the network, but there are also issues of latency that a faster server can minimize it's contribution.


The client station then works with the data.

[johnkoh]

Re: Network Performance

Hi all,

I have the network speed problem and assumed it caused by my application, not A5. My Shadow application is too slow to refresh, open a form, acting. I removed and breakdown to several set which had may children table. I also removed the Referential integrity.

Even I did those fixing, It is too slow to use my Shadow application on Network. It seems to be working fine on the server computer but still too slow on Client site.

Tom,
When you said

We have also broken our applications up int logical pieces

Is it like this structure?
c:\MyDB\Account\ table_1 ,
c:\MyDB\Account\ table_2,
c:\MyDB\Account\ table_3,
c:\MyDB\Project\ table_A,
c:\MyDB\Project\ table_B,
c:\MyDB\Project\ table_C,

Does this structure increase the network speed?

After I read the Ira's suggestion and his WEB site, I replaced a few button scripts then It seems like it improved the speed to open a form.
However, before I go through all of the forms and scripts, I'd like ask about Using Calculated Values.

Questions
A -- Does the Calculated Values make slow on the forms?
Because I have 5 tables set and 20 Calculated Values, which used the 3 of tablesum(), Lookup(), Some of are used UDF and If( ... if(... if(...)...)... ). This Form is too slow to use and whenever I edit the fields, it is holding too long.
B -- If it makes too slow, what is the alternation of field calculation?
C -- Is there any other fact, something like get a new Network server computer and server O/S?
D -- I want to run it with average speed right now. What do I have to do?

Thank you

[Stan Mathews]

Re: Network Performance

Dbsum() will be much faster than tablesum().
LookupC(), LookupN(), LookupD(), LookupL() are much faster than lookup().

what is the alternation of field calculation

Form level calculations.