Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Windows 7 peer-peer 'speed issues"

346 views
Skip to first unread message

Sherlock

unread,
Jun 20, 2011, 1:55:20 AM6/20/11
to
Windows 7 desktop \964bit) and Windows as a server with a Mapped
drive.

Client connection and browsing the data the speed is excellent.. use
same VO program on server, same data and client slows down. It is
only say 4 databases open.

Exit the server VO program and you would expect the client VO program
to speed up to its original nibble speed, but it does not. Exit the
client VO program and start it again and the speed of data from the
server is fast again.

It would appear the Windows 7 desktop machine as a server, throttles
the data connection speed for the program now running twice on the
same set of data... however does not remove the throttle when there is
only one connection to the data again. Another description if the 2nd
program drops the client to a lower data feed it stays at this feed
rate.

Any similar experiences or work arounds?

Phil McGuinness

D.J.W. van Kooten

unread,
Jun 20, 2011, 7:43:20 AM6/20/11
to
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:55:20 -0700 (PDT), Sherlock
<sher...@sherlock.com.au> wrote:

Hello Phil,

>Windows 7 desktop \964bit) and Windows as a server with a Mapped
>drive.

How could you have speed issues with a 964 bit Windows while most of
use have not more than 64 bits <bg>

>Client connection and browsing the data the speed is excellent.. use
>same VO program on server, same data and client slows down. It is
>only say 4 databases open.
>
>Exit the server VO program and you would expect the client VO program
>to speed up to its original nibble speed, but it does not. Exit the
>client VO program and start it again and the speed of data from the
>server is fast again.

If I understand it well, the connected machine using a map drive to
the "server" works fast until the user of the "server" starts the same
program, correct? What is the speed of the "server" worker (compared
to him working without the "client" connected)?

I have the same situation here without that speed issue. I mean: it
was a lot slower, but not only after the "Server" user entered the
program.

Do you happen to have a ADS test version? Total speeds is a lot higher
since we started using that and if that goes for you too you know at
least where the problem is.

Dick

Sherlock

unread,
Jun 20, 2011, 7:58:16 AM6/20/11
to
Snip[ If I understand it well, the connected machine using a map drive

to the "server" works fast until the user of the "server" starts the
same program, correct? ]

Yes.
---
snip[ What is the speed of the "server" worker (compared to him
working without the "client" connected)? ]

Server is great speed,,,, and the client using the server is great
speed.. before using the program on the server.
--
snip[ I have the same situation here without that speed issue. I mean:


it was a lot slower, but not only after the "Server" user entered the

program. ]

I hear you
--
snip[ > Do you happen to have a ADS test version? Total speeds is a


lot higher since we started using that and if that goes for you too

you know at least where the problem is.]

ADS has no future in our development. All our other desktop
development is POSTGRES and fantastic.

--
Something I am going to try tomorrow ; If you need to share files off
a Microsoft Windows 7 Computer to other PCs you need to tell it to
allocate resources correctly or you may experience problems after the
share has been active for a while. To fix the problem you need to set
the following registry key to ‘1′:

HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management
\LargeSystemCache

and set the following registry key to ‘3′:

HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanmanServer\Parameters\Size

Reboot after making these changes and you will find the problem no
longer occurs.

Mathias

unread,
Jun 20, 2011, 8:08:47 AM6/20/11
to
This sounds like the good old Optimistic locking functionality in windows.

As long as the client is the only user of a file the client is allowed to have local read and write buffers. When the second user opens the same file the write buffers are sent from the client to the server and not used after that. Each record are read from the server and nothing is cached.

I seems like this state is unreversable. The only way to get the buffering back is to close the file and open it again.

You would experiance the same behaviour if the second user is a network client.

/Mathias

paid...@googlemail.com

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 4:42:36 PM11/8/12
to
Hi,

any update on that topic? It seems that there was no final solution.

We experience exactly the same issue as Phil described.

Win 7 64 Bit. When both machines access the data
that is stored on either machine via network share, access is slowed down extremely.

Disabling oportunistic locking on both via
Windows registry, the client and the server did not help.

Manipulating the reg keys as described the post Phil discovered somewhere on the web did not help either:

"To fix the problem you need to set
the following registry key to ‘1′:

HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management
\LargeSystemCache

and set the following registry key to ‘3′:

HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanmanServer\Parameters\Size"

Well, no, that did not work.

Alex

Sherlock

unread,
Nov 9, 2012, 8:36:53 PM11/9/12
to
Alex

Never did find a workable solution. Would like a short term reprieve.

We will replace our DBF version with Postgres SQL by Sept, 2013.
We are in erly internal beta now, but the system is massive.
We will offer LAN or CLOUD with 50% to move to cloud over next 18 months.

This SMB2 is a complete pain in the arse and not warranted by MS.

It screws a lot of people over.

Phil

Massimo Bighelli

unread,
Nov 10, 2012, 1:03:26 PM11/10/12
to

Disabled SMB2 here, and everything is OK

Massimo

dlzc

unread,
Nov 10, 2012, 4:11:39 PM11/10/12
to in...@arcasistemi.it
To The Group:

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:03:23 AM UTC-7, Massimo Bighelli wrote:
> Disabled SMB2 here, and everything is OK

Instructions and discussion...
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winserverfiles/thread/67baa9fd-5eaf-438e-9cc4-dc1a531b9e19/

David A. Smith

paid...@googlemail.com

unread,
Nov 10, 2012, 6:24:33 PM11/10/12
to in...@arcasistemi.it
Thanks for your input. Yep, it was an SMB2 issue. I was indeed finally able to manage the problem by importing those two registry files, as suggested by Jean-Luc Stassen in the thread "Windows 7 corruption network". For completeness, I repeat them here.

On the server:

REGEDIT4
; NTServer.REG Created & maintained by Nick Ramsay (http://
www.witzendcs.co.uk/html/contact_us.html)
;
Available from: http://www.witzendcs.co.uk/html/nt_networking.html
;
Last edit: 08 March 2007 23:21
;
This file will alter the behaviour of the network redirector on

; Windows NT, 2000/2003 & XP servers & workstations acting as servers

; ##NEW## - Additional setting for Vista when acting as a server in a
peer-to-peer environment


[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanmanServer
\Parameters]

; Prevent premature workstation disconnection - default is 0000000f
(15 minutes)

"autodisconnect" = dword:ffffffff

; This one is for Server 2003 - default is 2 minutes!
"ConnectionNoSessionsTimeout" = dword:ffffffff

; This one disables the SMB2 protocol in Vista which causes major file-
sharing problems

; this is taken from http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1259708&SiteID=1

"SMB2" = dword:00000000


; Forces the server to really close a file when instructed

"CachedOpenLimit" = dword:00000000


; The following 2 entries force oplocks off

"EnableOpLockForceClose" = dword:00000001

"EnableOpLocks" = dword:00000000


; The following 2 entries force the server to immediately report a
sharing violation

; Although this looks wrong, it is actually the best option for
Clipper

"SharingViolationDelay" = dword:00000000

"SharingViolationRetries" = dword:00000000


; This one is for Win2K and later


[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\MRXSmb
\Parameters]

"OplocksDisabled" = dword:00000001


On the workstation:

REGEDIT4
; NTWrkStn.REG Created & maintained by Nick Ramsay (http://
www.witzendcs.co.uk/html/contact_us.html)
; Available from: http://www.witzendcs.co.uk/html/nt_networking.html
; Last edit: 18 October 2006 22:45
;
; Modification history
; 18/10/2006 22:45 Jean Mathieu of Outillage Placide Mathieu inc
spotted an extra 'd' on the end of
; "EnableOpLockForceClose" - Now fixed.
;
;
; This file will alter the behaviour of the network redirector on
; Windows NT, 2000 & XP workstations

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanmanWorkstation
\Parameters]

; Disable oplocks

"UseOpportunisticLocking" = dword:00000000

"EnableOpLocks" = dword:00000000

"EnableOpLockForceClose" = dword:00000001


; Disable file caching - effectively forces a commit back to the
server

"UtilizeNtCaching" = dword:00000000

; Unlocks data immediately in response to an unlock request (improves
performance on W2K)

"UseUnlockBehind" = dword:00000001

; Allows data to be read even if another station has a lock in place -
can prevent "deadly embrace"

"UseLockReadUnlock" = dword:00000000

; This one appears to be present in W2K onwards, although by default
it isn't
; actually in the registry.
We'll add it & explicitly disable the workstation asking for oplock
support


[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\MRXSmb
\Parameters]

"OplocksDisabled" = dword:00000001







Massimo Bighelli

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 5:57:59 AM11/11/12
to
:-)

this was my post to Jean-Luc

Massimo

Jean-Luc Stassen

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 6:02:01 PM11/11/12
to in...@arcasistemi.it
Yep, thanks to Massimo... I still use that because MS doesn't seem to correct this ! It's a pain ... pfff
And the problem is the same between Server 2008 and Win 7 !!

I'm curious... how this will work / not work on Win 8 !!

Jean-Luc

j...@igsoft.be

unread,
Oct 8, 2013, 4:24:10 PM10/8/13
to
The story continues with sbs2011 and 2012 essential !
The same kind of problem
Speed slow down when a second user open the dbf...

Any new idea ?

Jean-Luc

Sherlock

unread,
Oct 10, 2013, 5:06:37 AM10/10/13
to
Jean-Luc

snip[ The story continues with sbs2011 and 2012 essential ! The same kind of problem Speed slow down when a second user open the dbf... ]

The only work around is TERMINAL SERVER, SQL database.

DBFs shared the way it has been for 30 years is totally screwed with later version of Windows.

Have not seen a truly workable solution.. that is one that actually works beyond the two methods above.

It has cost us lost clients.

The Xbase language on a Peer-Peer network is doomed.

Phil McGuinness

Sherlock

unread,
Oct 10, 2013, 5:23:54 AM10/10/13
to
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2696547

Btw: Have you tried these suggestions and do they work for others with success.

j...@igsoft.be

unread,
Oct 14, 2013, 5:04:26 AM10/14/13
to
Hi Phil,

Yes, already try. It's ok to avoid data corruption, but has no effect on the speed when more than one user is connected...
Browsing data (with bbrowser) becomes very slow on "certain" network... !
I have no idea what can affect the speed on the server side...

Jean-Luc
0 new messages