Larry, Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that the server should serialize the i/o requests, and, if it didn't, we'd be in a big mess. Can you help me understand why a CONNECT following closely behind a DISCONNECT would fail? It doesn't wait to fail, it fails immediately. This has got to have something to do with the conversation between R:Base and the OS, and the only way I can understand it is that the OS cannot keep up. Under what conditions will R:Base fail to CONNECT (given that the path, shares, rights, all that stuff is corrrect)?
And in my other example (waiting for access to required resource), I would expect R:Base to keep counting to 100%, but it frequently stops at 25% and sits. Emmitt > > Any feedback on these musings? I'm no expert at this stuff, folks ... >feel > > free to poke holes in my theories - please! > >This doesn't sound right to me. The file server should process all the file >opens, etc, in the order it receives them -- otherwise you could never >reliably read back data you had just written to a file. In addition, even >if the files were open for the initial CONNECT statement, R:Base will keep >trying until the time out is reached -- and the files should certainly >become available during that period. >-- >Larry Emmitt Dove Manager, DairyPak Business Systems Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. 40 Lindeman Drive Trumbull, CT 06611 (203) 673-2231 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================================ TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES: Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l ================================================ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l
