Re: [SLUG] nt workstations slow samba connections

From: patrick grantham (pwgrant@cssi-fl.com)
Date: Tue Jun 18 2002 - 18:08:20 EDT


I will my client try and find a re-index for compact routine. It's still
amystery why it only affects the NTclients and only recently after such a
long time.

On Tuesday 18 June 2002 17:28, you wrote:
> OK. There's a problem with just about all index systems but BTrieve and SQL
> When you create an index it's obviously sorted on the key. But when you add
> records they are not inserted into the index but added to the end.
> Thus, after adding so many new records you have to rebuild the index to get
> the performance out of it again.
>
> See if it applies.
>
> On Tuesday 18 June 2002 11:26, patrick grantham wrote:
> > Oddly enough, these two stations used to be the "fastest" in terms of
> > overall performance. Only recently have they been so slow they appear to
> > be hung. They have been in use for nearly two years. Something has
> > changed in the environment, I haven't put my finger on it yet.
> >
> > I wuld like nothing more for them to dump this app. However, it's a
> > catholic church using a contact managemt type app that has unique
> > features to catholicism.
> >
> > On Tuesday 18 June 2002 10:26, you wrote:
> > > > I find in a 14 station site the two nt workstations' samba
> > > > conenctions are very slow with one 16 bit program. This is not
> > > > affecting the the w9x clients at all, just the one program on the two
> > > > NT clients. The program affected is a contact management
> > > > applicaition written for does then recompiled to windows (it's 16bit)
> > > > with a few gui features added. The underlying engine was mostly
> > > > unchanged. Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Well, first I would blame the application for its speed. My bet is that
> > > you have some kind of DBase/Btrieve file-based database of some kind
> > > that the clients map to - which is much slower than the alternatives
> > > these days.
> > >
> > > The second thing to remember is that 16bit Windows apps run under
> > > WOWEXEC inside a single (or separate) NTVDM. That's right: win16 is
> > > emulated under WinNT and newer. Suprised?
> > >
> > > It's vaguely similar to MacOS 9 running under MacOS/X, and even sort of
> > > like Wine under Linux, kind of. Lots of 16bit<>32bit "thunking" going
> > > on between the native environment and the emulated one. It's also not a
> > > 100% perfect emulation (but it is pretty good), and you will
> > > occasionally experience problems.
> > >
> > > Truthfully, I've seen better performance with DOSEMU under Linux than
> > > COMMAND.COM running in a NTVDM under WinNT. Win2k is arguably better,
> > > and WinXP supposedly even lets you play DOS 32bit extender games again
> > > (DMA and sound works, etc).
> > >
> > > It's amazing how many Windows users don't know they're using emulation.
> > >
> > > - Ian C. Blenke <icblenke@nks.net> <ian@blenke.com>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 12:52:35 EDT