Sat Oct 13 02:02:48 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my Access front end to the SQL 2000 database was dragging (don't ask me, but the Access front end is 24 MB and it seems to try and cache alot of stuff, I'm no programmer) hell even IE5.5 was slow as could be. I have had it replaced with a Vantage, one of the value 10k scsi's. It was much better, but still not up to par with the 400BB's that I have used.
The other people in the company use different portions of that same Access front end, and the typical office apps.
Socrates
Sat Oct 13 03:01:25 2001
Socrates
Sat Oct 13 09:22:17 2001
Which means the whole shootin' match (disk,memory,network) is involved.
I'd pick memory, myself, cos it's the cheapest fix. Shove more RAM into the workstation and it should go faster, if for no other reason than most of the Access ADP file will be in the file cache.
As you said, you can't beat RAM for disk access :)
Sat Oct 13 22:15:58 2001
I've got 2k professional at home. I download Linux isos
on to one machine, while I work on the other.
When I transfer the iso from the incoming machine, a Cheetah equiped, 950 athlon, 512 MB ram, to the workstation, 1.4 gig athlon, 512MB ram, 4 drive X 15 array, in raid 0, I can't use the machine at all, while it's writing from one machine to the other.
If I was a business, and I wanted guys to be able to use the computer, while the file was being downloaded, would a dual processor workstation solve the problem?
The weird part about this, is they guy bitches first about the ddrs being slower then a WD ide drive, then he puts in a 10k scsi drive, and that doesn't do much either, though it is a Vantage.
You think RAM in the server is the solution. How much? I think the server has 512 MB of ram already.
Given my experience with os, when transfering large files the only productive solution is to have another machine to work on. Duals?
Do you think my solutions make sense?
Thanks again for the feed back.
Socrates
Sun Oct 14 10:36:57 2001
If I was a business, and I wanted guys to be able to use the computer, while the file was being downloaded, would a dual processor workstation solve the problem?
No, the processor isn't doing anything much during a disk transfer if you're using DMA. Is it machine A (the 950 athlon) or machine B (the 1.4 Athlon) you're having trouble with? Are they both running Windows 2000, or that crappy Windows 9x thing?
I'm going to make a guess that the drive on machine A is being saturated, and having another physical disk specifically for this data might help a lot.
However, Performance Monitor in this kind of situation is your friend. Go into control panel, then Admin tools, and add counters for network bytes used, processor utilisation, that sort of thing.
(Edited by PaulHill at 3:38 am on Oct. 14, 2001)
Sun Oct 14 19:41:31 2001
I'm kind of used to this from macs. Pretty much, if you are transfering files, you go to the bathroom, or the frig
while it's occuring.
Same with 2000, when doing 650 MB iso transfers.
Having another disk, a D disk, for data, for this kind of transfer stuff is something I had not considered.
I just put it in a folder on c, in My documents.
It's not that big a deal to me, but, I guess, given the Access sql problem described, it might be.
If you are transfering files off a server in 2000, and the machine is useless during the access, is there a solution?
You suggested ram on the server end, and now a D disk for
data. With the server I gather the data should be stored on a separate disk, or split over a couple disks?
Still, isn't this just 10/100 limitations, that you just have to live with?
Thanks again
Socrates
I should have used Task Manager to have a look at the
exact info during the transfer. I did notice the cpu utilization is not very high, just constant.