forum home | register | profile | members |search | faq
homepage | lost password? | chat room
|
|
QSA ToolWorks Public Feedback Forum forum home | register | profile | members |search | faq homepage | lost password? | chat room |
| QSA ToolWorks Public Feedback Forum > TCP/IP > Performance | You are not logged in. Login or Register. |
| Pages: 1 |
|
| Author: | Topic: Performance | |||
Robin Posts: 10 Registered: 2003-04-16    |
 Posted: Apr 16, 2003 8:55:37 pm    
On the performance issue. I have 4 remote locations that log on to my server via TCP/IP. I have a T1 connection to the server, the clients are all using DSL. The current performance of v5 is really far below what is needed. Even opening a view is unbearably slow. Listing views are often a joke. Especially when you have to wait for that list to refresh every time it gets covered temporarily by another window. It really really makes the software unusable. Can you say how much faster you expect 6 to be than 5 in this way? Looking for a solution to this myself I have been investigating terminal software, like Citrix, which gives you only a picture of the data, not the data itself - a very much faster alternative but, unfortunately, not currently working with Mac OS servers.
|
|||
| Ian Posts: 1 Registered: 2003-05-23 |
Posted: May 23, 2003 1:24:14 pm
We have been doing quite a bit of experimentation with the performance of Helix remote users under TCP/IP. We have users with speed so fast that there is no difference between a remote location and our LAN. Forms draw in a matter of seconds. Then other users have incredibly slow speeds taking up to 5 minutes to draw a single form. I'm on the edge of my understanding of how the internet works when I talk about this, but working with our providers, we checked routings of the data using various pinging techniques and we could find no significant differences in performance of the connections to explain the massive speed differences between locations. The actual routings taken by the data were indeed different between fast and slow users. The providers ended up forcing a change in routing from one location we were having extreme problems with just to see if the issue was a local one. Immediately the speed of connection increased to the same as the good locations.As far as we can make out, Helix must be using some protocols that are different from anything that we could test for, or that we are using on any other communications. For some reason, whatever the difference is with the Helix protocols causes major issues with routing through certain switches on the internet. If Helix is already aware of this and is changing protocols accordingly to solve this problem in the version 6, that is great, but if not, I would definitely suggest looking into this. It is a major problem. Also, while I think about it, we are having similar issues with wireless connections through airport.
|
|||
| bengt Posts: 1 Registered: 2003-05-30 |
Posted: May 30, 2003 11:37:02 am
replay to Robin... We use Timbuktu Pro for remote control of computers on our lan. It is realy not a good solution but it works while waiting for proper TCP/IP handling from Helix 
|
|||
| Robin Posts: 10 Registered: 2003-04-16 |
 Posted: Apr 16, 2005 11:56:46 am
Here I am back again with the same concern about TCP/IP. Actually there have been big improvements with 5.3.1 but it still has problems. The performance of TCP/IP over a local network is dramatically slower for certain views compared to Appletalk. I am talking about 4 or 5 times slower! The views in question are lists with embedded subforms. The ability to construct such forms, and the utility they add to a collection, is a major feature of Helix. However, the performance is so slow with TCP/IP that it makes the collection unusable. I have had to go back to Appletalk and I am currently unable to get the benefits of accessing the collection over the internet . We have to use Timbuktu to access the collection - not particularly adequate solution. I am very concerned that this TCP/IP problem will still exist in Helix 6, when Appletalk will no longer be be an option. I have had no assurances about this, in fact the response to my report have been very unfavorable. Matt did not even want to look at the problem and I have had to spend money getting an independant review in order to prove that I am not telling fibs. 
|
|||
| wintrack Posts: 5 Registered: 2003-04-09 |
Posted: Apr 20, 2005 12:31:54 am
Robin, A couple of points. 1. You can pickup a beige G3 on ebay for about $50. This with a mac to VGA video converter will work fine with Timbuktu and makes an excellent remote helix client appletalk or tcp/ip. Only issue is training for remote printing. Have a client who has 3 remotes funcionting this way and they are very happy with it. 2. 5.3.1 is pretty good for TCP/IP for most functions. For many of my complex forms it is actually even faster than appletalk on a local networks. I know you are not fibbing and I belive that your situation is different. My point is simply that you may be able to successfully resolve your issues in other ways. About 10 years ago I wanted to do something with embedded subforms and made a very cool solution wiht them. I was so thrilled that I got it all working and it was really neat. Unfortunately I didn't test it on the network until I was ready to implement it. Boy was I embarasssed. Network performace stunk. All the feed back I go was that there was nothing wrong it must have been unoptimized. I stripped everythign out of it and made sure it was completly optimized and it still stunk. Embedded subforms have been slow performers for years. Some people seem to be OK with them and I am glad you are OK with the appletalk performance. Personally I avoid them whenever possible and have become pretty good at duplicating their functionality without using them. (Perhaps one level deep if I have to.) FWIW, I do think that the HRT will do what they can to improve this but I wouldn't necessarily bet that it will be ready for 6. This is a very old issue and they really have done some amazing things to make the TCP IP networking as good as it now is. If you are not on 5.3.1 you need to get there first because it is much better than the earlier 5 releases were. I have clients doing real and productive work with a TCP IP clinet now and I don't think htat would have been possbile before the latest releases. Other people did fine with 5.x YMMV. Timbuktu is truly wonderful but if you have routing issues over the internet where latency gets over about 200 ms it can also be frustrating to unusable. Sometimes those routing issues can go on for days after something like a fiber optic line hit with a backhoe and other times they will clear up within minutes. These are real internet issues and no database is immune from them. Wade |
|||
dkuchta Posts: 40 Registered: 2003-04-09 |
Posted: Apr 20, 2005 7:30:40 am
For those of you with TCP/IP problems, you might want to raise this to the HRT as a significant problem before we get to Helix 6. I think I read on their stie's latest blurb that AppleTalk is not planned to be supported in version 6.
|
|||
| Robin Posts: 10 Registered: 2003-04-16 |
 Posted: Apr 04, 2007 11:22:55 am
I just thought I should revisit this topic with some more posistive feedback. Helix server 6.01 server client is working really well now. The TCP/IP speeds are excellent both on a local network and over the internet. Whatever you did in the last build it worked great! Keep up the good work guys - I am really excited to see a native OSX client . . . . . . 
|
| Pages: 1 |
|
| Lost Password? Powered by UPB Version : 1.8 A script by PHP Outburst |
