Alpha Software Mobile Development Tools:   Alpha Anywhere    |   Alpha TransForm subscribe to our YouTube Channel  Follow Us on LinkedIn  Follow Us on Twitter  Follow Us on Facebook

Announcement

Collapse

The Alpha Software Forum Participation Guidelines

The Alpha Software Forum is a free forum created for Alpha Software Developer Community to ask for help, exchange ideas, and share solutions. Alpha Software strives to create an environment where all members of the community can feel safe to participate. In order to ensure the Alpha Software Forum is a place where all feel welcome, forum participants are expected to behave as follows:
  • Be professional in your conduct
  • Be kind to others
  • Be constructive when giving feedback
  • Be open to new ideas and suggestions
  • Stay on topic


Be sure all comments and threads you post are respectful. Posts that contain any of the following content will be considered a violation of your agreement as a member of the Alpha Software Forum Community and will be moderated:
  • Spam.
  • Vulgar language.
  • Quotes from private conversations without permission, including pricing and other sales related discussions.
  • Personal attacks, insults, or subtle put-downs.
  • Harassment, bullying, threatening, mocking, shaming, or deriding anyone.
  • Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or otherwise discriminatory jokes and language.
  • Sexually explicit or violent material, links, or language.
  • Pirated, hacked, or copyright-infringing material.
  • Encouraging of others to engage in the above behaviors.


If a thread or post is found to contain any of the content outlined above, a moderator may choose to take one of the following actions:
  • Remove the Post or Thread - the content is removed from the forum.
  • Place the User in Moderation - all posts and new threads must be approved by a moderator before they are posted.
  • Temporarily Ban the User - user is banned from forum for a period of time.
  • Permanently Ban the User - user is permanently banned from the forum.


Moderators may also rename posts and threads if they are too generic or do not property reflect the content.

Moderators may move threads if they have been posted in the incorrect forum.

Threads/Posts questioning specific moderator decisions or actions (such as "why was a user banned?") are not allowed and will be removed.

The owners of Alpha Software Corporation (Forum Owner) reserve the right to remove, edit, move, or close any thread for any reason; or ban any forum member without notice, reason, or explanation.

Community members are encouraged to click the "Report Post" icon in the lower left of a given post if they feel the post is in violation of the rules. This will alert the Moderators to take a look.

Alpha Software Corporation may amend the guidelines from time to time and may also vary the procedures it sets out where appropriate in a particular case. Your agreement to comply with the guidelines will be deemed agreement to any changes to it.



Bonus TIPS for Successful Posting

Try a Search First
It is highly recommended that a Search be done on your topic before posting, as many questions have been answered in prior posts. As with any search engine, the shorter the search term, the more "hits" will be returned, but the more specific the search term is, the greater the relevance of those "hits". Searching for "table" might well return every message on the board while "tablesum" would greatly restrict the number of messages returned.

When you do post
First, make sure you are posting your question in the correct forum. For example, if you post an issue regarding Desktop applications on the Mobile & Browser Applications board , not only will your question not be seen by the appropriate audience, it may also be removed or relocated.

The more detail you provide about your problem or question, the more likely someone is to understand your request and be able to help. A sample database with a minimum of records (and its support files, zipped together) will make it much easier to diagnose issues with your application. Screen shots of error messages are especially helpful.

When explaining how to reproduce your problem, please be as detailed as possible. Describe every step, click-by-click and keypress-by-keypress. Otherwise when others try to duplicate your problem, they may do something slightly different and end up with different results.

A note about attachments
You may only attach one file to each message. Attachment file size is limited to 2MB. If you need to include several files, you may do so by zipping them into a single archive.

If you forgot to attach your files to your post, please do NOT create a new thread. Instead, reply to your original message and attach the file there.

When attaching screen shots, it is best to attach an image file (.BMP, .JPG, .GIF, .PNG, etc.) or a zip file of several images, as opposed to a Word document containing the screen shots. Because Word documents are prone to viruses, many message board users will not open your Word file, therefore limiting their ability to help you.

Similarly, if you are uploading a zipped archive, you should simply create a .ZIP file and not a self-extracting .EXE as many users will not run your EXE file.
See more
See less

Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Re: Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

    Shadowed db's are supposed to take any computations and stuff off the server bay having all the support files on the workstation. That makes sense to me. All that has to pass through is the data to and from the server. All the scripts, forms, reports, functions, etc are run on the workstation. In other words, the server becomes a receptacle of data, not a workhorse.

    It also makes sense that V9 and sbs is not compatible, since V10 came out to take care of that.

    I DO NOT install alpha5 developer on the servers to do work unless it is peer to peer and thare is not much other choice. I almost always put it on a work station. My method(unless no other option) is to do all work on a workstation with data files that are identical to the server and then(when modified and tested) move them to the server with an incremented version number.

    Hope it is clarified for you.

    I am still not sure it matters. Not sure you are set up right on the server with proper permissions or something else.
    Dave Mason
    [email protected]
    Skype is dave.mason46

    Comment


      #17
      Re: Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

      Originally posted by DaveM View Post
      Shadowed db's are supposed to take any computations and stuff off the server bay having all the support files on the workstation. That makes sense to me. All that has to pass through is the data to and from the server. All the scripts, forms, reports, functions, etc are run on the workstation. In other words, the server becomes a receptacle of data, not a workhorse.
      With or without shadowed db's the calcuations are all done on the workstation running the alpha5.exe. The functionality the server performs is file sharing. Alpha5 desktop is not a client/server architect. Shadowed db's simply store a copy of the data dictionaries on the workstation running the alpha5.exe. This eliminates the need for the alpha5.exe to copy those components across the network when ever an object in the data dictionary is requested. In this case the issue is with writing data back to the server. A runtime copy of Alpha5 is primarily only writing data back to the table.
      Andrew

      Comment


        #18
        Re: Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

        Check out this thread. If your running SBS2011 per the comments this resolution is "already baked in". However it appears its not part of the SBS 2011 Standard.
        http://www.sbsfaq.com/?p=2489

        This thread at experts-exchange sounds very similar to your situation. Take a look at the suggestions, primarily the one invovling updating the Network Interface Card drivers and/or replacing the Network card with a different one to test with.
        http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/M..._27252726.html
        Andrew

        Comment


          #19
          Re: Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

          Help Way beyond what you would see most places.

          Nice job
          Dave Mason
          [email protected]
          Skype is dave.mason46

          Comment


            #20
            Re: Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

            Hi everyone,

            Thanks for taking the time to help me i really appreciate it.

            Aschone - That post on expert exchange is actually one created by a colleague of mine. The only think i haven't tried from the suggestions on there is updating the NIC drivers and installing another card to test. I'm on site tomorrow so i might give this a go.

            I have now virtualized the old sbs2003 - Tomorrow i am going to site to:

            Test a Windows 7 computer running a5 from the sbs2011.
            Test a XP workstation when connecting a5 to the virtual server.

            While I’m there I’ll also try install the hotfix above and look at updating the network drivers.

            I'll let you know how i get on.

            Thanks again,

            Simon

            Comment


              #21
              Re: Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

              Hi again,

              Running A5 from the virtual 2003 server was still slow when saving to the database.

              I’m going to try the hotfix and or updating the network card driver tonight when the office is empty.

              Cheers,
              Simon

              Comment


                #22
                Re: Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

                Hello everyone,

                I have now updated the NIC driver with the latest driver from Intel - no change to the performance of A5.
                The Hotfix update failed to install reporting that it wasn't applicable to this Operating System.

                I didn't want to have to change the way the A5 was setup but with no options left I'm going to try the offline shadow copy. I'm taking a copy of the a5 databases and app files on the server to setup a test environment. I'll let you know how I get on. In the meantime can you please try to think of anything I might have missed/not checked?

                Thank you,
                Simon

                Comment


                  #23
                  Re: Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

                  1) Have you compacted the database?

                  2) Did you try another NIC?

                  3) Are you running a Raid?

                  4) What Services are you running the server? DNS, DHCP, AD, Exchange, SQL?

                  5) How have you partitioned you harddrives? Is your Raid volume the only volume in the system and all services attempting the use the same volume at the same time?

                  6) Is alpha5 the only item that is slow? How about normal file/copy across the network?
                  6a) Test 1 - Server is the source and pushes data to a Windows XP machine
                  6b) Test 2 - Server is the source and an Windows XP machine pulls the data
                  6c) Test 3 - Windows XP machine is the source and pushes data to the Server
                  6d) Test 4 - Windows XP machine is the source and the server pulls the data

                  7) Disabled SMB2? (I have seen this listed as a possible solution in many threads but have also seen it discredited many of times. However when push comes to shove I would prefer to have listed in my documentation that I tried it without success than to tell the boss that I have not tried it.)

                  8) Ran System Performance Monitor with emphasis on the volume. Numerous write ups are available on the internet regarding what values the counters should be reporting based on the number of spindles in the volume.

                  9) Event logs? Are there any messages logged regarding the disk system and or file/sharing?
                  Andrew

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Re: Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

                    Having installed several hundred networks around Florida and using my experience:
                    The first thing changed would have been the NIC card if I had set up like all the others and had a speed problem. Aschone is correct to test that first.
                    With Alpha, compacting can definitely have an affect.
                    There have been times when a small glitch in programming has caused a few problems too. It didn't show up before, but here it came just in time for the new server.

                    Just throwing possibilities. I have not done sbs 2011 yet.
                    Dave Mason
                    [email protected]
                    Skype is dave.mason46

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Re: Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

                      Hi Aschone,

                      I think I’ve found the cause of the problem. The issue is not with Alpha 5 it is in fact the disk write speed. Alpha 5 is the main application people use so it’s has been confused for the problem when it was merely highlighting the performance issue of the server. My apologies I shouldn’t have been so quick to blame A5.

                      3) Are you running a Raid? –
                      New server is running Raid 5 – SAS 6G 5/6 512MB Raid controller – 2 x 250gb Seagate ST3250318AS & 1x 250gb WD2502ABYS
                      Old server is running Raid 1 – Dell PERC 6/I Raid Controller – 2 x SCSI Drives (not sure of make and model)

                      5) How have you partitioned you harddrives? Is your Raid volume the only volume in the system and all services attempting the use the same volume at the same time?
                      New server - The Raid is the only volume in the system. Two partitions – System partition 200GB – Data partition 270GB
                      Old server – The Raid is the only volume in the system. Two Partitions – System partition 25GB – Data partition 440GB

                      I have been running benchmark test on each server and the difference is staggering, the benchmark test on the old server completed in just over 5 minutes – on the new server it has been running for about an hour now and is still not complete. The test involves writing 12GBs of data to the drive.

                      If anyone is interested I used SiSoft Sandra to benchmark the servers performance. It’s a pretty neat piece of software available for free download.

                      The read speed on the new server is fine, showing speeds of 80mbps – 110mbps
                      I’m going to try installing a faster drive and then copy the A5 files to test performance.

                      Anyone have any thoughts on what could be causing the slow write speed?

                      Kind regards,

                      Simon

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Re: Alpha5 performance issue on Microsoft SBS 2011

                        Originally posted by SimonNetcom View Post
                        3) Are you running a Raid? –
                        New server is running Raid 5 – SAS 6G 5/6 512MB Raid controller – 2 x 250gb Seagate ST3250318AS & 1x 250gb WD2502ABYS
                        Old server is running Raid 1 – Dell PERC 6/I Raid Controller – 2 x SCSI Drives (not sure of make and model)

                        5) How have you partitioned you harddrives? Is your Raid volume the only volume in the system and all services attempting the use the same volume at the same time?
                        New server - The Raid is the only volume in the system. Two partitions – System partition 200GB – Data partition 270GB
                        Old server – The Raid is the only volume in the system. Two Partitions – System partition 25GB – Data partition 440GB

                        I have been running benchmark test on each server and the difference is staggering, the benchmark test on the old server completed in just over 5 minutes – on the new server it has been running for about an hour now and is still not complete. The test involves writing 12GBs of data to the drive.
                        When I google "SAS 6G 5/6 512MB Raid controller" I get returns on multiple products from many different vendors. Can you specify the Make and model of the card you are using? At this time I am assuming that this card is not embedded into the motherboard and has its own on board processor to perform parity calculations.

                        Check your raid integrity, the card should have a utility to report this to you. Also check the raid drivers and firmware to verify you have the most up to date. Also check the S.M.A.R.T. status reporting of the drives.

                        For you drive choice I have also heard and in my setups have always used the same make and model of hard drives for the raid. In your case the Barracuda drive has 8MB cache while the WD drive has 16MB. I would put this discrepancy at the top of my list of things to investigate. What is the possibility of replacing the WD with a Seagate ST3250318AS?

                        Raid 1 is gonna be faster than Raid 5 all other things being equal. SCSI drives are also typically faster, if you had 10,000 RPM SATA drives you might have swung the speed factor to SATA but with the 7200 rpm I would have to imagine the SCSI's will be faster. Again not having the specs to research I have to make some generalizations here and could potentially be wrong.

                        If I was in your shoes, this is what I would do.
                        1) Return the old server and re-activate it.
                        2) Pull the new server and bring it back to the shop
                        3) Delete the raid config
                        4) create a raid 1 config using the two seagate drives
                        5) partition as you see fit, install windows, test your write speed
                        6) If your hardware raid card supports it you can upgrade the raid 1 to a raid 5 (however I doubt this to be possible)
                        7) With a raid 5 config retest

                        I am assuming you will come to the same conclusions as before, the raid 5 with the 3 drives is providing un-acceptable results. While you are currently getting un-accpetible results with Raid 5 it should do exactly what you need and should be performing better than what you are currently seeing.

                        Choose to either go with
                        a) raid 1 config for both the data and os partition
                        b) raid 1 config for data, and single drive for OS ( this option is at bottom of my list and would be my last resort)
                        c) purchase a 3rd Seagate ST3250318AS, config raid 5 with it and test
                        d) Research the card and its available options, maybe a setting on the card is improperly configured

                        From the sounds of the setup and equipment used, I get the impression this is a white box server. If not you could potentially try to get the hardware vendor to step in and provide some tech support in this matter.

                        At this time this topic is moving away from the general scope of the Alpha5 user group. I can offer suggestions as to what you can try and I would believe that others here may also have ideas. However that may be I am curious as to what results and final resolution are, but would think that you would find some better answers and/or experts if you posted your issues in a forum devoted to raid configuration and performance issues. For me you have gone beyond what I have dealt with in regards to hardware. The options and solutions I am now providing are only based on what I have read during my own research of hardware and data storage.
                        Andrew

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X