> Good points...thanks, Tracy! I'll ask them to configure the A/V (I > think it's Norton) to ignore the DBC/DCX/DCT/DBF/FPT/CDX files and > hopefully that will fix it.
This is one of the first tings I do with any AV solution. Also, if you are using Symantec AntiVirus Corporate (and this may hold true for Norton AV also) you can also disable scanning files located on logical networked drives. The thinking here is the Server ought to have its own AV already, so why rescan, especially over a network connection, and slow things down needlessly. Gil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MB Software Solutions > General Account > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Vista user getting DBC internal consistency error (VFP9SP1) > > > Tracy Pearson wrote: > > You are probably hitting one of the Vista complaints. If the > box Vista is > > connecting to does not run the newer security it falls back to the older > > processes. I suspect VFP isn't getting enough information back > through the > > pipe due to other processes slowing down the network pipes and or > threads on > > the Vista connection. > > > > If the client has installed an Anti-Virus, some are known to be resource > > hogs that cause this problem (I've seen Kapersky and Norton do > this). Here, > > we have found Trend-Micro and F-Prot to be less invasive. > > > > I know they won't like this answer. Putting the data on a fully patched > > w2003 server, or the new w2008 server will probably fix the problem with > the > > Vista box, because it will not be back paddling the connections all the > > time. > > > > There are a few tweaks on the net for Vista to turn off some of the > > slowdowns seen with network transfers. > > > > Good luck, > > > > Tracy > > > Good points...thanks, Tracy! I'll ask them to configure the A/V (I > think it's Norton) to ignore the DBC/DCX/DCT/DBF/FPT/CDX files and > hopefully that will fix it. Obviously we're trying to take the least > invasive approach so as to not hack the security altogether. I'm > wondering if just for a short/quick test, we turned off the Norton A/V > and retried if that'd make a difference. > > I thought originally that this might have been UAC rearing its PITA > head, but perhaps that's not it after all. > > Thanks again for your thoughts! > --Michael > > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
