|
| HFCS Connection Problems when switching to WD 10 |
| Débuté par M. Beaven, 19 juin 2006 11:23 - 6 réponses |
| |
| | | |
|
| |
Posté le 19 juin 2006 - 11:23 |
Hello All,
I attempted earlier to switch my flagship application from WD9 to WD10 earlier on a trial basis. The first couple of connections seemed to be ok. At approximately 5 connections, I began to see major lag time when connecting to the HFCS database. I was seeing the splash screen for up to 4 or 5 minutes, to the point I thought the program was not responding. Eventually, the connection seemed to go through and the application would launch. I have no idea what was causing the lag, but when I recreated the install with WD9 and launched this version, connections were as quick as ever.
Has anyone dabbled with WD10 on a HFCS database with similar results?
Does anyone have an idea as to what could be causing this? I will also be sending a support request to PCSoft and will post if I hear anything.
Kind Regards,
Marc |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 19 juin 2006 - 23:27 |
All that I've been able to find so far is a major difference in execution speed for the HCreationIfNotFound function. Using the profiler, WD9 is taking 227 ms (35.9% of Project Init code) whereas WD10 is taking 1s 833 ms (88.5% of the code) to open the same project, linking to the same HFCS v10 database.
Does anyone have a guess as to why HCreationIfNotFound has become so much less efficient? I am using the function with a wildcard as well as the hdelayedOpening. Thanks for any comments.
-Marc
Hello All,
I attempted earlier to switch my flagship application from WD9 to WD10 earlier on a trial basis. The first couple of connections seemed to be ok. At approximately 5 connections, I began to see major lag time when connecting to the HFCS database. I was seeing the splash screen for up to 4 or 5 minutes, to the point I thought the program was not responding. Eventually, the connection seemed to go through and the application would launch. I have no idea what was causing the lag, but when I recreated the install with WD9 and launched this version, connections were as quick as ever.
Has anyone dabbled with WD10 on a HFCS database with similar results?
Does anyone have an idea as to what could be causing this? I will also be sending a support request to PCSoft and will post if I hear anything.
Kind Regards,
Marc |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 20 juin 2006 - 08:00 |
After continued evaluation using the profiler, I have come to the conclusion that HCreationIfNotFound is definitely the source of my problem. After removing it from my project initialization code completely, the WD10 exe is now launching as fast as my WD9. Unfortunately, removing the code cannot be a permanent option, and I simply don't want to believe that I cannot get acceptable performance out of 10. Thanks for any comments or suggestions.
Regards,
Marc
All that I've been able to find so far is a major difference in execution speed for the HCreationIfNotFound function. Using the profiler, WD9 is taking 227 ms (35.9% of Project Init code) whereas WD10 is taking 1s 833 ms (88.5% of the code) to open the same project, linking to the same HFCS v10 database. Does anyone have a guess as to why HCreationIfNotFound has become so much less efficient? I am using the function with a wildcard as well as the hdelayedOpening. Thanks for any comments. -Marc Hello All,
I attempted earlier to switch my flagship application from WD9 to WD10 earlier on a trial basis. The first couple of connections seemed to be ok. At approximately 5 connections, I began to see major lag time when connecting to the HFCS database. I was seeing the splash screen for up to 4 or 5 minutes, to the point I thought the program was not responding. Eventually, the connection seemed to go through and the application would launch. I have no idea what was causing the lag, but when I recreated the install with WD9 and launched this version, connections were as quick as ever.
Has anyone dabbled with WD10 on a HFCS database with similar results?
Does anyone have an idea as to what could be causing this? I will also be sending a support request to PCSoft and will post if I hear anything.
Kind Regards,
Marc |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 20 juin 2006 - 12:50 |
G'day Marc
You have been lucky if you were ever able to get HcreationIfNotFound() to run quickly at startup in WD9. We have never been able to run it under a minute or so over a network (Checking for 200+ files) so like you we took it out.
We now have it as part of the upgrade process so when clients get an upgrade they run an option in their utilities menu which in turn runs the HcreationIfNotFound() and we have never had a problem.
Regards
Al |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 20 juin 2006 - 15:55 |
Hey Al,
The HCreationifNotFound() has up to now been running very quickly on my deployment, taking not even 1 second to execute. Note, however, that I am only running in a Terminal Server environment (one executable deployed through ~ 100 TS sessions) and using an HFCS Database with around 200 files last time I checked.
I am, however, glad that someone else can verify this function as an impediment. Further, I have just created a monitoring program that runs as a service on my HF server. It was primarily to perform indexing, backups, etc. This service will be perfect to fire the HCreationifNotFound at regular intervals.
Thanks for your input, it is much appreciated.
Regards,
Marc
G'day Marc
You have been lucky if you were ever able to get HcreationIfNotFound() to run quickly at startup in WD9. We have never been able to run it under a minute or so over a network (Checking for 200+ files) so like you we took it out.
We now have it as part of the upgrade process so when clients get an upgrade they run an option in their utilities menu which in turn runs the HcreationIfNotFound() and we have never had a problem.
Regards
Al |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 20 juin 2006 - 17:47 |
...
>I am, however, glad that someone else can verify this function as an impediment. Further, I have just created a monitoring program that runs as a service on my HF server. It was primarily to perform indexing, backups, etc. This service will be perfect to fire the HCreationifNotFound at regular intervals.
...
Hi Marc,
Can confirm the problem, even with HF Classic. Have been using same code as Guenter for several years. It's much more efficient and has the same effect.
Regards
Mat |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 20 juin 2006 - 17:47 |
Hello Marc,
we had also delay with HCreationIfNotFound() with 140 files, but I've decreased that with fFileExist(). So I first check with fFileExist() and if it doesn't exist I use HCreationIfNotFound() to create the file. That makes our program much faster.
Regasrds, Stefan.
Hey Al, The HCreationifNotFound() has up to now been running very quickly on my deployment, taking not even 1 second to execute. Note, however, that I am only running in a Terminal Server environment (one executable deployed through ~ 100 TS sessions) and using an HFCS Database with around 200 files last time I checked. I am, however, glad that someone else can verify this function as an impediment. Further, I have just created a monitoring program that runs as a service on my HF server. It was primarily to perform indexing, backups, etc. This service will be perfect to fire the HCreationifNotFound at regular intervals. Thanks for your input, it is much appreciated. Regards, Marc G'day Marc
You have been lucky if you were ever able to get HcreationIfNotFound() to run quickly at startup in WD9. We have never been able to run it under a minute or so over a network (Checking for 200+ files) so like you we took it out.
We now have it as part of the upgrade process so when clients get an upgrade they run an option in their utilities menu which in turn runs the HcreationIfNotFound() and we have never had a problem.
Regards
Al |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | | | |
| | |
|