[RBASE-L] - RE: Virtual Memory Problems, RB65++, Win2K

[Eric Peterson]

Gunnar,   We do all that zip return, close the connection, etc etc etc. �Every trick known to the RB world, we have in place. �Those are not fixes, they’re hacks; and in most situations, don’t work. ��If it worked for you, consider yourself lucky, but be mindful of the problem at a later time.       Eric Peterson IT Manager QMI Security Solutions   From: Gunnar Ekblad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:17 AM To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: Virtual Memory Problems, RB65++, Win2K   Mike & Eric 1.      I have no intention to argue with you 2.      The problem is real 3.      In my case the problem is related to LOOPS and zip cmd /c copy within the loop 4.      I can not replicate it in Concomp 5.      Dennis UDF has now for 3 months cleared me from the problem and I stay happy with this workaround 6.      I was not clever enough after right click on NTVDM.EXE to set anything to Auto????!! 7.      There is I believe a close by problem which is litterly translated from Swedish error message regarding ‘page switch file’ is that the same as swopfile? Anyway I believe that value should be set as high as possible. 8.      I await Stevens report whether he is as equally happy as I am with to the RUDFZIP.exe   Gunnar Ekblad   -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fr�n: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] F�r Mike Willochell Skickat: den 14 november 2003 17:01 Till: RBASE-L Mailing List �mne: [RBASE-L] - RE: Virtual Memory Problems, RB65++, Win2K   At 09:32 AM 11/13/2003 -0600, Eric Peterson wrote: This has been discussed at great length.  Everything you are saying is the same thing many of us experience everyday.  I personally have no less than 10 users that have to reboot 2-3 times a day because of this problem. Many people have posed this problem to RBase Tech. and nobody has been successful getting them to listen and fix it. Dear Steven and Eric; This morning I tested an example sent to us by Dennis McGrath on two separate machines, one Windows XP and one Windows 2000 Professional. My results were consistent on both machines and were contrary to the results that Dennis experienced on his machine. Using the following example provided by Dennis, I issued the following command against the ConComp database while monitoring the Task Manager for its results: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Customer Dennis reported that the memory usage on his machine jumped by 128K each time he executed the command, but my results were an 8K jump on both machines, even after dozens of iterations. This problem is most likely aggravated by a setting regarding how Windows handles the memory because Windows handles most of this in the ntvdm.exe shell (NT Virtual DOS Machine). These settings are accessible by right-clicking the shortcut icon and manipulating in there. It is best to make everything that you can "Auto." See if this has any impact on your results. Otherwise, if someone could create an example utilizing the ConComp database, we will be happy to look into it. Best Regards, Mike