The first one does always 3 the second varies between 9 and 19 Gunnar Ekblad
-----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fr�n: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] F�r J. Stephen Wills Skickat: den 9 september 2003 17:47 Till: RBASE-L Mailing List �mne: [RBASE-L] - Re: NTVDM Gunnar, out of curiosity, how many iterations (MIN,MAX,MEAN) do each of the WHILE-loops perform? Steve in Memphis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gunnar Ekblad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:39 AM Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: NTVDM Stephen Typically in my case (however behaviour is random) I run report in a 2 level while loop. It should execute 3 times on first level and approx 15 times on second level. But It stops after a while Either with NTDVM error or as Pete says on vitual memory. Both had occurred an reboot and try again normaly works. I hate do add I am inclined to put in an extra workstation for reporting in background on ME/98 while my users on XP/NT only adds the reportrequest to a DB while the extra PC executes them. My main reason for this is realyy not this problem rather to save the users from the time when the APP is occupied while they run the reports Gunnar Ekblad -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fr�n: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] F�r J. Stephen Wills Skickat: den 9 september 2003 17:14 Till: RBASE-L Mailing List �mne: [RBASE-L] - Re: NTVDM Pete, does "running a program from within a cursor" actually mean calling it from within the cursor's associated WHILE-loop? I ask because I have a prototype data-entry system (f/Survey Research) wherein I have numerous command-files and/or forms (w/their own EEPs) that are called "long" after the cursor is defined and before it has navigated to the end of its result-set. I have run this system (off-and-on, in various re-visions) f/more than a year, w/up to maybe 5 connections (4 data entry and 1 monitoring sessions) under 9x and 2K w/o apparent leaks, lockups, etc. albeit the occasional blue screen - either something I did or we have this one 98 box that one does it in Office, too, or seemingly anything opened off a server-side share. Anyway, although my architecture still needs refinement - I've already "re-factored" (deep-sixed) several un-necessary modules - I don't seem to have encountered this memory leak. I'm not casting doubt on your assessment - indeed, if this is happening, then I hope RBTI would address it. However, as I navigate the cursor in its own command file, passing it parm's, and my WHILE-loops are not used to directly cycle through the cursor's result-set, maybe I have an un-intended work-around until the time that said leak is remedied. Just a thought, Steve in Memphis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:52 AM Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: NTVDM > RBTI has a memory leak when you run 6.5++ under NT (2k, or XP). I've sent > them test cases but never had the problem actually fixed. I have found that > the problem is caused by running a program from within a cursor. The memory > on the machine will continually climb until windows croaks with a 'low > virtual memory' error. The ONLY way to release the memory back the OS is to > close RBase entirely (not a very user friendly way to solve the problem). > Disconnecting the DB doesn't work. I wish they would fix this because this > is the only bug standing in my way of moving my users from pure DOS to a > windows system. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gunnar Ekblad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:19 AM > Subject: [RBASE-L] - NTVDM > > > > I am Doing report in RBDOS ver 6.5++ the latest and greatest on a XP system. > (On windows ME I never encounter any problem) > Sometimes I get a NTVDM error message that (in Swedish) refers to memory. > Against my principles I have used REGEDIT32 to change : > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINES\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\WOW > > And put in the memory value 256 (MB)from the default of 0. So far it seems > to have remedied the problem. > > It is aginst my principles since I am not knowing what I am doing this is > far beyond my knowledge OG XP and regedit32. > > Has anyone one an opinion if I am on the right track or if I should stop > messing with system defaults? > Gunnar Ekblad >
