| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 50390 | 2004-10-19 05:23:00 | Slow Database Response with Xp pro? | Bloke (6297) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 282604 | 2004-10-19 05:23:00 | I use a program called ScheduAll to schedule resources. Since I have upgraded my laptop to a Toshiba M30 Pentium M 1.4 with 512 Meg ram and XP pro, the response time of this program is much slower than when I ran it on a Compaq Laptop P3 800 with Win 98se. eg, releasing a resource used to take 4 secs, now takes 8 secs. However, if I put the data files on to our work "server" (Celeron 400, windows 98 SE, 100 baseT), and access them over the network, the time required to make a change is approx 5 seconds. I can't see why accessing files over a network can be faster than accessing the same files on the computers own C: drive! I think the ScheduAll database is "foxpro". Everything else on the new laptop seems to run much faster! | Bloke (6297) | ||
| 282605 | 2004-10-19 10:10:00 | Hello and welcome to Press F1. I take it nothing has changed in the database? And that you are using the same version of the database on the two laptops and the server? How large is the database? Is the foxpro version you are using naturally supported by XP? (that was probably a silly question, but it had to be asked..) Lastly, are you using SP2? Is there a piece of software on the latop that is not on the other computers that is interfering with the resource release? In other words, have you tried timing it with and without the windows firewall, with and without the anti-virus running etc. BTW, is the AV software the same on all three computers? I realise I haven't actually answered your question but hopefully this is food for thought.... Andrew. |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 282606 | 2004-10-22 01:07:00 | Thanks for the thoughts Andrew, nothing changed in the database, I simply copied it over to the new PC, BUT, I did have to do the following (this is copied from the ScheduAll help page) - "If you have WIN XP PC's you must manually install the User DSN. Windows XP does not come with the Visual FoxPro driver needed to print ODBC reports." Instructions followed and all seemed to go OK, and it was for the reports only so don't think that is part of the problem. I think foxpro is an old DOS based database, so probably not "naturally supported by XP?" Yes, I have SP2 installed, but this problem was prior to installing that, and it has made no difference. I thought the antivirus software may have been a problem, but disabling that, and my firewall, does not make any difference. One thought I did have was that with XP I was using NTFS file system, so I created a separate partition and made it FAT32 and put the data files there, but that didn't make any difference either. The database data files consist of 600 files totaling around 70 megs in size. And yes, I have tried de-fragging as well. So, it remains that I upgraded a P3 800 to a Pentium M 1.4 with twice the RAM, and from Win98SE to Win XP pro and this program now runs at half the speed it used to. Any other ideas? Thanks |
Bloke (6297) | ||
| 282607 | 2004-10-22 01:44:00 | I had a production programme on a minicomputer once. It used pretty much the same CPU time to run each time. A new version of the operating system was installed. My unchanged production programme took twice as much CPU time to run. :D (That was the change from Rev 18 to Rev 19 of Primos). That's progress. ;-) They say. :_| |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 282608 | 2004-10-22 02:01:00 | The mobile CPU can be slowed down by various options --- powersaving, etc. So it might not be running at 1.4 GHz. ;-) "mobile cpu speed" to Google gives a link to "Speedswitch XP" a free programme to give you control over the CPU speed, rather than relying on XP's Performance settings. That might be worth a look. The price is right. ;-) |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 282609 | 2004-10-22 02:12:00 | Frustrating isn't it? The 1.4M should perform (so we are lead to believe) like the P4 1.7-1.8. Another thought was given it is a mobile processor laptop (with the longer battery life), has the laptop got a slow-mo hard drive? (i.e. 3200rpm or something similar). Given the db is 70-80Mb it sounds like the laptop is choking on the record seek process (or record write etc.) Have you turned on / off the file indexing process in Windows? On will slow the laptop down but on might help it to find the record faster(? - I'm guessing there - I don't know if the Windows seek gets inside the db or not) My only other thought was trying it with the laptop plugged into the mains versus running on batteries - running on batteries, the modern laptops go into "battery preservation mode" (I made that up but I know they try to conserve resources) - but I presume you are doing your test with the laptop plugged in? Lastly, have you got some sort of registry protector running (like Spybot's teatimer?) - this might also be interfering. Have you tried the db on an XP Pro desktop? Are you able to? As you can see I'm clutching at straws here.... HTH, Andrew. |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 282610 | 2004-10-22 03:57:00 | Is it possible to contact the suppliers of the software. They should know if there are any issues with XP. Foxpro has been around for awhile now but our accounting system uses it fine on Windows 2000 and XP (although I've never run it Win98 to compare performance). Certainly XP has more overhead than Win98 but normally runs on faster hardware. | Dolby Digital (160) | ||
| 282611 | 2004-10-26 06:05:00 | Thank you all for your thoughts. I use the Toshiba power mannagment, which has everything swithed to max speed when on mains power. We are about to upgrade a desktop pc with XP in the next few days so will test that with interest. I too have suspected a slow hard drive, but everything else seems to run quite fast. I wondered about a cacheing problem but don't know what to try out there. Will have a look into indexing annd also approach the supplier, though I have found them to be very anal in the past about this sort of problem. Bloke |
Bloke (6297) | ||
| 1 | |||||