Home > Archive > Clipper > March 2004 > Network slowing down
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Network slowing down
|
|
| Herman Groenewegen 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| I've got a DOS Clipper application running since 1995.
Network is created by Win95-DOS (but without GUI) i.e. NET START WORKSTATION
etc..
This is with binding the NETBEUI protocol interface.
There are 5 PC's in this small network.
On 1 PC I have no other option then to bind only NETBEUI.
On another PC (the "dataserver"), NETBEUI and TCP-IP are activated, to give
access to the data to others (W2000 etc) in the network.
I tried to combine the other PC's with TCP-IP, but this results in a
dramically slowing down network performance after some time.
Seems now that the TCP-IP protocol binding is causing the slowing down
problem.
I already have the section in protocol.ini
[MS$NETBEUI]
NETBIOSRETRIES=4
NETBIOSTIMEOUT=1500
I wonder if:
- anyone has seen this before or if this is a known issue
- I can achieve a stable network combined with the TCP-IP protocol through
network settings or so.
- Is there a TCP-IP.VXD that can be used instead of the NETBEUI.VXD
somewhere ???
I read about the opportunistic locking etc, but did not change any settings
about that.
TIA
Herman
| |
| Richard Bos 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| "Herman Groenewegen" <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote:
> I've got a DOS Clipper application running since 1995.
> Network is created by Win95-DOS (but without GUI) i.e. NET START WORKSTATION
> etc..
> This is with binding the NETBEUI protocol interface.
> There are 5 PC's in this small network.
>
> On 1 PC I have no other option then to bind only NETBEUI.
>
> On another PC (the "dataserver"), NETBEUI and TCP-IP are activated, to give
> access to the data to others (W2000 etc) in the network.
>
> I tried to combine the other PC's with TCP-IP, but this results in a
> dramically slowing down network performance after some time.
> Seems now that the TCP-IP protocol binding is causing the slowing down
> problem.
AIUI, NetBleuigh was designed for tiny, local, peer-to-peer networks,
and therefore assumes perfect connections (on a small local network,
warranted 99% of the time, and the other 1%, just change the damn
cable), as well as perfectly cooperative clients (with M$ OSes, not so
very warranted), and no slow links (again, on a small local network,
this tends to be true).
TCP/IP is much more reliable in the long term, for larger and more
heterogeneous networks, and especially for distributed networks such as
the 'net, but this does mean that it needs to spend time checking for
errors.
So yes, for a five-computer network under your total control, NetBleuigh
(and others such as IPX/SPX) is likely to be faster than TCP/IP. Just
don't complain if it all breaks down when a single link starts to
misbehave.
Richard
| |
| Herman Groenewegen 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Richard,
Thanks for your quick reply.
consider this:
I'm not talking about slower performance, but i mean really slow..
What about a "loop" time of more then 10 seconds, before results are shown
EACH single time..
When I restart the NETBEUI only PC, it runs quick again, after some time
(few hours), it slows down dramatically again.
That's not what You ment I think, any other suggestions are really
appreciated
Herman
| |
| Nick Ramsay 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:16:40 +0100, "Herman Groenewegen"
<hgA@Temka.nl> wrote:
>Richard,
>
>Thanks for your quick reply.
>
>consider this:
>I'm not talking about slower performance, but i mean really slow..
>What about a "loop" time of more then 10 seconds, before results are shown
>EACH single time..
>
>When I restart the NETBEUI only PC, it runs quick again, after some time
>(few hours), it slows down dramatically again.
>
NETBEUI is a horribly broken protocol - M$ never really got it working
properly & ditched it after they discovered the internet.
>That's not what You ment I think, any other suggestions are really
>appreciated
>
OK, I'll bite ;-)
Ditch 95 & use an OS that works - Linux would seem to be a good fit.
You could simply re-use your existing hardware & have Linux up &
running in an hour.
For a fuss-free install, look at something like SME Server at:
<URL:http://www.contribs.org/>
Install that in "server only" mode & enjoy a "real" server.
| |
| gabor salai 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Xref: kermit comp.lang.clipper:60563
"Herman Groenewegen" <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote in message
news:4056c3f7$0$41763$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
> Richard,
>
> Thanks for your quick reply.
>
> consider this:
> I'm not talking about slower performance, but i mean really slow..
> What about a "loop" time of more then 10 seconds, before results are shown
> EACH single time..
>
> When I restart the NETBEUI only PC, it runs quick again, after some time
> (few hours), it slows down dramatically again.
>
> That's not what You ment I think, any other suggestions are really
> appreciated
>
just for more info:
what is exactly slowing down: netbeui pc or tcp/ip pc?
on what way is network cabling realised? is it utp, with hub or with switch?
when encountering slowdown (after few hours) what happens when you
simply doisconnect some pc from network (just plugg out, not restart)?
| |
| Richard Bos 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| "Herman Groenewegen" <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote:
> consider this:
> I'm not talking about slower performance, but i mean really slow..
> What about a "loop" time of more then 10 seconds, before results are shown
> EACH single time..
No, that doesn't sound like simple network drag.
> When I restart the NETBEUI only PC, it runs quick again, after some time
> (few hours), it slows down dramatically again.
Only on the NetBeui PC? In that case, it sounds like something on that
PC, not necessarily your program, is leaking memory or processes. If the
NetBeui PC slows down the entire network, it sounds like something on
that PC is flooding the network.
Richard
| |
| Herman Groenewegen 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Gabor, let me explain:
This section is still on coax (don't laugh please), 2 cables connected with
1 repeater.
(There is a coax-utp converter to connect the office, but we did disconnect
it already -no improvement-.)
1 PC (acts as dataserver) Win95 has netbeui and tcp-ip, so it can be
accessed from other PC's too (in the office)
The other 4 PC's only have Win95-DOS (without GUI) with netbeui.
1 of these 4 PC's has an application that loops every 2 seconds and
reads/writes to databases (DbfNtx) on the dataserver,
on this one the slowing down is obviously monitored best-> the
application loop takes longer and longer.
shutting down this PC and restart it, will result in "normal" loop
times, but after time it slows down again.
3 of these 4 PC's are use incidentically, just to read/write on the
dataserver.
Herman
"gabor salai" <gaborDOTsalai@euroherc.hr> schreef in bericht
news:c36ust$9qk$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
> "Herman Groenewegen" <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote in message
> news:4056c3f7$0$41763$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
>
> just for more info:
> what is exactly slowing down: netbeui pc or tcp/ip pc?
> on what way is network cabling realised? is it utp, with hub or with
switch?
> when encountering slowdown (after few hours) what happens when you
> simply doisconnect some pc from network (just plugg out, not restart)?
| |
| Herman Groenewegen 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Nick,
Linux is not an option, as:
- There are typical windows-apps involved,
- I am not familiar with Linux (but interested),
You're right, M$-W95 is not the state of the art any more, but i'm trying to
get the cause after 9 years without problems.
Thanks anyway.
Herman.
| |
| Herman Groenewegen 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Richard,
You maybe right, but...
On that (netbeui only) PC, the memory amounts are displayed with the clipper
Memory() functions,
they do not change very much and show no low memory, so I think it's not
likely a memory problem.
Only 1 PC (Win95) that stores the databases, has Netbeui and TCP-IP
installed.
Just restarting the netbeui only pc will end the problem though, you're
right about that.
Network datatransfer is not much and with the windows system monitor there
is no much network activity (stable and about 5%).
I'm about to cut parts of the network / shutting down the other PC's to see
if any improvement is shown.
Any comments are welcome.
Herman
| |
| Steve Lupton 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Based on your description of what's going on, I'd be looking at your
application for uncommitted record locks that should be released when done.
Many older applications relied on Clipper's implicit record unlock when then
record pointer is moved and an implicit unlock when a DBF is closed. In my
experience you always need to release file and record locks explicitly.
Over time, if the number of open locks is increasing, NETBUI will soon gag
trying to keep track of all of them.
The real issue is what has changed recently? If this has been working OK
for a number of years, it would seem that something recent is causing the
problems. My guess is that the "other" PC's - you only mentioned 4 using
NETBUI only - that connect to your "server" via TCP/IP are newer
winnt/win2k/winxp systems with different levels of service patches.
"Herman Groenewegen" <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote in message
news:4057206d$0$41760$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
> Richard,
>
> You maybe right, but...
> On that (netbeui only) PC, the memory amounts are displayed with the
clipper
> Memory() functions,
> they do not change very much and show no low memory, so I think it's
not
> likely a memory problem.
>
> Only 1 PC (Win95) that stores the databases, has Netbeui and TCP-IP
> installed.
>
> Just restarting the netbeui only pc will end the problem though, you're
> right about that.
>
> Network datatransfer is not much and with the windows system monitor there
> is no much network activity (stable and about 5%).
>
> I'm about to cut parts of the network / shutting down the other PC's to
see
> if any improvement is shown.
>
> Any comments are welcome.
>
> Herman
>
>
| |
| Nick Ramsay 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:35:44 +0100, "Herman Groenewegen"
<hgA@Temka.nl> wrote:
>Nick,
>
>Linux is not an option, as:
>- There are typical windows-apps involved,
I'm  - how is this relevant in the context of a server?
>- I am not familiar with Linux (but interested),
>
The solution I suggested does not assume any Linux knowledge - if you
can set up a Windows network & use a browser, you will have very
little trouble.
Break free, all you have to lose are your chains!
| |
| Gary Stark 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
|
Herman,
Herman Groenewegen <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote ...
[color=darkred]
You're suggesting that at some time in the past it was ?
--
g.
Gary Stark
gstark@Redbacksweb.com
http://www.Redbacksweb.com
Back Up My Hard Drive? I Can't Find The Reverse Switch!
| |
| Budyanto Dj. 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Hello Steve,
"Steve Lupton" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:vKH5c.7641$Xd1.4440@twister.socal.rr.com...
> [snip]
> Many older applications relied on Clipper's implicit record unlock when
then
> record pointer is moved and an implicit unlock when a DBF is closed. In
my
> experience you always need to release file and record locks explicitly.
> [snip]
Do you mean a locked record will still be locked even after the DBF is
closed, unless we explicitly unlock it prior to closing?
Budyanto
| |
| Richard Bos 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Gary Stark <bogus4swen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Herman,
>
> Herman Groenewegen <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote ...
>
>
> You're suggesting that at some time in the past it was ?
Sure. In 1965.
Richard
| |
| Gary Stark 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
|
rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote ...
[color=darkred]
BC ?
(Before Computers)
But seriously, no, not even then.
Well, no, not seriously.
--
g.
Gary Stark
gstark@Redbacksweb.com
http://www.Redbacksweb.com
"Are you a Klingon, or is that a turtle on your head?"
| |
| Herman Groenewegen 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Gary,
Does Visual Objects work under Linux?
And that in addition to Siemens PLC hardware (Siemens drivers are not
applicable for Linux)
I have to consider that too..
Herman
"Gary Stark" <bogus4swen@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:4057a856$0$27642$61ce578d@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.au...
>
> Herman,
>
>
> Herman Groenewegen <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote ...
>
>
>
>
>
> You're suggesting that at some time in the past it was ?
>
>
>
>
> --
> g.
> Gary Stark
> gstark@Redbacksweb.com
> http://www.Redbacksweb.com
>
>
> Back Up My Hard Drive? I Can't Find The Reverse Switch!
>
>
| |
| Herman Groenewegen 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Steve,
I will see deeper into the locking of records and/or files. As far as I've
seen, they are unlocked immediately after changing a record.
Recently we \had to change some functionality, and i have looked into that
over and over, not seeing a prolem cause.
Tomorrrow i will exchange the "netbeui only" pc with another (have to start
somewhere to trap the error).
As to the other PC's (with tcp-ip) at the office: I disconnected the office
restarted the pc, but the problem arised again after some hours.
Thanks very much for your reply.
Herman.
P.S.,
Anyone knows what memory(3) is returning? there are values from that
fuction.
"Steve Lupton" <nospam@nowhere.com> schreef in bericht
news:vKH5c.7641$Xd1.4440@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Based on your description of what's going on, I'd be looking at your
> application for uncommitted record locks that should be released when
done.
> Many older applications relied on Clipper's implicit record unlock when
then
> record pointer is moved and an implicit unlock when a DBF is closed. In
my
> experience you always need to release file and record locks explicitly.
> Over time, if the number of open locks is increasing, NETBUI will soon gag
> trying to keep track of all of them.
>
> The real issue is what has changed recently? If this has been working OK
> for a number of years, it would seem that something recent is causing the
> problems. My guess is that the "other" PC's - you only mentioned 4 using
> NETBUI only - that connect to your "server" via TCP/IP are newer
> winnt/win2k/winxp systems with different levels of service patches.
>
>
>
> "Herman Groenewegen" <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote in message
> news:4057206d$0$41760$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
> clipper
> not
there[color=darkred]
> see
>
>
| |
| Dave Pearson 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| * Herman Groenewegen <hgA@Temka.nl>:
> Anyone knows what memory(3) is returning? there are values from that
> fuction.
From the "Clipper 5.01 vs 1.29 Anomalies (#04)" Norton Guide:
,----
| MEMORY() Memory(3) and (4) undocumented.
|
| Clipper Version 1.29 dtd 04/15/91.
|
| Memory(3) returns the approximate amount of memory allocated to the
| SVOS.
|
| Memory(4) returns the amount of Expanded Memory available.
|
`----
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
| |
| Gary Stark 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
|
Herman,
Herman Groenewegen <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote ...
[color=darkred]
No.
[color=darkred]
As in cellphones etc? My experience with their drivers and software is that they're in some ways poorly designed. Some work, other parts of the same package do not.
--
g.
Gary Stark
gstark@Redbacksweb.com
http://www.Redbacksweb.com
Save the Whales. Collect the entire set!
| |
| Ross McKenzie 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| On 17 Mar 2004 20:15:53 GMT, Gary Stark <bogus4swen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Herman,
>
>
>Herman Groenewegen <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote ...
>
>
>
>
>No.
>
>
>
>
>As in cellphones etc? My experience with their drivers and software is that they're in some ways poorly designed. Some work, other parts of the same package do not.
>
PLC: Programmable Logic Controller...as for industrail applications,
machinery monitoring and control. Set humour ON/ Not Pretty Lousey
Computer Set Humour OFF/
Regards,
Ross McKenzie
ValuSoft
Melbourne Australia
valusoft AT optushome DOT com DOT au
| |
| Robert Haley 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| "Herman Groenewegen" <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote in message news:<405873e2$0$41749$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>...
Herman,
These are the values I show for memory(),
memory(0): Base Memory,
memory(1): Largest Block,
memory(2): DOS Run Area,
memory(3): Virtual Memory,
memory(4): EMS available
Mine usually equals memory(4): (0) .. :)
I hope the info helps,
Regards,
Bob
> P.S.,
> Anyone knows what memory(3) is returning? there are values from that
> fuction.
>
| |
| Gary Stark 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Ross,
[color=darkred]
Of course; thanx.
Too many TLAs.
Ok, if the original question then extends to whether VO handles those, the answer too will be no. But it may be that VS.Net or AppForge/VB might, depending upon the underlying hardware basis.
--
g.
Gary Stark
gstark@Redbacksweb.com
http://www.Redbacksweb.com
I come from a land down under
| |
|
|
| Gary Stark 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
|
Hi Dave,
Dave Pearson <davep.news@davep.org> wrote ...
[color=darkred]
No, I do not. :)
--
g.
Gary Stark
gstark@Redbacksweb.com
http://www.Redbacksweb.com
"Hawaii or Havaii? ""Havaii."" ""Thanks!"" ""You're velcome!"""
| |
| Herman Groenewegen 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Thanks Dave.
herman
| |
| Herman Groenewegen 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| Thanks Robert.
herman
| |
| Herman Groenewegen 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| I did check all the record / file locks, the shared, -readonly and exclusive
things
Nothing abnormal.
How could I see the number of record locks?
I think I have to count them in my user function i.e. MyNetRlock().
Or would there be such Lib / System functions? I did not find them.
Any other suggestions?
Thanks in advance.
Herman
"Steve Lupton" <nospam@nowhere.com> schreef in bericht
news:vKH5c.7641$Xd1.4440@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Based on your description of what's going on, I'd be looking at your
> application for uncommitted record locks that should be released when
done.
> Many older applications relied on Clipper's implicit record unlock when
then
> record pointer is moved and an implicit unlock when a DBF is closed. In
my
> experience you always need to release file and record locks explicitly.
> Over time, if the number of open locks is increasing, NETBUI will soon gag
> trying to keep track of all of them.
>
> The real issue is what has changed recently? If this has been working OK
> for a number of years, it would seem that something recent is causing the
> problems. My guess is that the "other" PC's - you only mentioned 4 using
> NETBUI only - that connect to your "server" via TCP/IP are newer
> winnt/win2k/winxp systems with different levels of service patches.
>
>
>
> "Herman Groenewegen" <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote in message
> news:4057206d$0$41760$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
> clipper
> not
there[color=darkred]
> see
>
>
| |
| Steve Lupton 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| What I said was the some network operating systems (NOS) don't release their
locks unless specifically told to do so. Clipper locks behave as
advertised. Especially in most versions of Novel Netware, file and record
locks are stored by the NOS in addition to the locks Clipper worries about.
The NOS lock list limits are often exceeded when this happens and your app
will crash. When this happens, usually the only way to recover is for the
same user to restart the application, sometimes even having to log out and
log back in; I have seen cases where all users had to log out before the
locks would be cleared.
"Budyanto Dj." <budyanto_noreply@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c38j3j$24l97i$1@ID-228122.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Hello Steve,
>
> "Steve Lupton" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:vKH5c.7641$Xd1.4440@twister.socal.rr.com...
> then
> my
>
> Do you mean a locked record will still be locked even after the DBF is
> closed, unless we explicitly unlock it prior to closing?
>
> Budyanto
>
>
>
| |
| Robert Haley 2004-03-26, 10:58 pm |
| "Herman Groenewegen" <hgA@Temka.nl> wrote in message news:<405b1cf4$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>...
> I did check all the record / file locks, the shared, -readonly and exclusive
> things
> Nothing abnormal.
>
> How could I see the number of record locks?
> I think I have to count them in my user function i.e. MyNetRlock().
> Or would there be such Lib / System functions? I did not find them.
>
> Any other suggestions?
Herman,
The following may help:
---------------
dbLockCount()
dbLockCount( xParam ) without parameters returns (Total # of Record
locks in all workareas).
--
A particular (workarea) or (alias) may also be passed to the function,
dbLockCount() will return the # of Record locks for that particular
workarea or alias. If an invalid parameter is specified, e.g.:
(workarea) not in use, invalid (alias) name or alias not found,
dbLockCount() returns (-1).
Examples:
---------
dbLockCount() (no parameters) = # of active locks in all
workareas
dbLockCount(1) (numeric) = # of locks in workarea 1
dbLockCount("ORD") (character) = # of locks for alias "ORD"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope the function is useful to you.
Regards,
Bob
------- <snip> --------
#include "Common.ch"
FUNCTION dbLockCount( xParam )
LOCAL x := 0
LOCAL nSelect := SELECT()
LOCAL nAreaLocks := 0
LOCAL nTotLocks := -1
LOCAL aLocks_ := {}
DEFAULT xParam TO NIL
FOR x := 1 to 250
IF ! ( ALIAS(x) == "" ) // active database in workarea ..
SELECT SELECT( ALIAS(x) )
IF ( ( ISNIL( xParam ) ) .OR. ;
( ISCHARACTER( xParam ) .AND. ;
ALIAS(x) = ALLTRIM(UPPER( xParam )) ) .OR. ;
( ISNUMBER( xParam ) .AND. ( x == xParam ) ) ;
)
aLocks_ := DBRLOCKLIST()
nAreaLocks := LEN( aLocks_ )
IF ( nTotLocks < 0 )
nTotLocks := 0
ENDIF // reset Total counter to (zero)..
nTotLocks += nAreaLocks
ENDIF // no params, alias=xparam, or wkarea=xparam
ENDIF // is an Active work area...
NEXT // x
SELECT (nSelect)
RETURN ( nTotLocks )
------- <snip> --------
| |
| Herman Groenewegen 2004-03-26, 10:59 pm |
| Thanks Robert,
I'm going to test the app with that function
Herman
|
|
|
|
|