Roger
Yes you're right. The errors are different, I got confused.
I tried to look in http://xiscsp.co.uk/ngp, where Peter Cooper keeps an archive to this newsgroup. There I found this thread, which again does not look directly connected but is somehow related:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:- Poor respone with Explorer
Author:-Mike Gordon Date:- Wednesday December 11, 2002 eMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] debug
Having a number of problems using Explorer for remote sites, particularly
when accessing global lists. Explorer hangs around for a long time and
occasionally fails with an error of <WRITE>Write+8^%CDSrv0. This is then
followed by a WINSOCK error of :
cn_iptcp(async=no, tcp_nodelay=yes, tcp-keepalive=no, recvbuff=16384, sendbuff=16384)
10060:[WINSOCK] timeout occurred on socket Occurred in NTI::Receive()
Any ideas or tips for improving the performace of Explorer. Remote systems are HP-UX, Cache version 4.1.4
Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer from Timur Safin (ISC Russia):
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:- Re: Poor respone with Explorer
Author:-Timur Safin Date:- Thursday January 9, 2003 eMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] debug
%systemroot%\cache.ini (c:\winnt\cache.ni)
[VisualM]
Timeout=60
You could try to change Timeout to the needed number of seconds for your case.
Best Regards, Timur
Subject:- Re: Poor respone with Explorer
Author:-Timur Safin Date:- Thursday January 9, 2003 eMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] debug
%systemroot%\cache.ini (c:\winnt\cache.ni)
[VisualM]
Timeout=60
You could try to change Timeout to the needed number of seconds for your case.
Best Regards, Timur ------------------------------------------------------------------
You mentioned XP - has this machine got SP2 installed? I wonder how that affects Cach�...
Older versions of Cach� had issues with reverse DNS lookup used for getting the server name from the IP, and this could be disabled via the Registry... Routine saving/compiling under those circumstances took ages! But that is quite old, I've never experienced it in 5.0.x
HTH,
Ram�n
