[NF] Dabo -- write once for 2 masters: win and web? (was Re: VFP index corruption)
Stephen Russell wrote: I am in the process of a conversion from real VFP tables onto SQL 2K5 at the moment and although it is not simple, it's a great deal easier than a complete rewrite. Comparative testing with C# reveals little performance increase but I must admit that I do like the Eye Candy you can add to c# programs with all the 3rd party components that are available. The main reason for the upgrade being the requirement for remote VPN access as well as web access eventually. Also, the question of data security from prying eyes is a lot easier with Client/Server, as is real time data backup. - I am sure that the conversion to a different backend in the end is almost a full rewrite, say 75% of the entire beast? Where if that time was spent in the port as well it would be time well spent. As you stated you get multi platform web/win as well as the ability to keep your look or visual style contemporary. Ed, With your recent news about Dabo, does this basically mean that your code will run on the desktop and the same code would run for the browser web based app? ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: [NF] Dabo -- write once for 2 masters: win and web? (was Re: VFP index corruption)
On Dec 11, 2008, at 11:11 AM, MB Software Solutions General Account wrote: With your recent news about Dabo, does this basically mean that your code will run on the desktop and the same code would run for the browser web based app? No, and a few other people have gotten a bit confused, so I'll have to be more careful with my terminology. What it means is that the same desktop UI can work as a regular old desktop app, or as a front end to an internet-based app. The data queries and writes occur on the server, which isn't in itself much different than a traditional client/ server app, but also changes to the app on the server are immediately reflected in the app. For example, if I change a form to add a new field, or change the color of the background, the next time you run that form you automatically see the changes. That's just like a browser app, in which changes in the HTML are automatically loaded by the browser. -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: [NF] Dabo -- write once for 2 masters: win and web? (was Re: VFP index corruption)
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:11 AM, MB Software Solutions General Account [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Russell wrote: I am in the process of a conversion from real VFP tables onto SQL 2K5 at the moment and although it is not simple, it's a great deal easier than a complete rewrite. Comparative testing with C# reveals little performance increase but I must admit that I do like the Eye Candy you can add to c# programs with all the 3rd party components that are available. The main reason for the upgrade being the requirement for remote VPN access as well as web access eventually. Also, the question of data security from prying eyes is a lot easier with Client/Server, as is real time data backup. - I am sure that the conversion to a different backend in the end is almost a full rewrite, say 75% of the entire beast? Where if that time was spent in the port as well it would be time well spent. As you stated you get multi platform web/win as well as the ability to keep your look or visual style contemporary. Ed, With your recent news about Dabo, does this basically mean that your code will run on the desktop and the same code would run for the browser web based app? -- No dabo experience I can only make a guess. If you design your projects/app to run with WebServices for all action/reaction then you probably could. You are disconnected in a web environment and you have to remember that as well as work with it. Trust me, disconnected was a tough nut to feel comfortable with when I started doing .NET web apps. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer Mimeo.com Memphis TN 901.246-0159 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
RE: VFP index corruption
Jean, Over the past 2 years we haven't had a single index or database corruption even though our tables are around the 1.5Gb individual size with indexes that range from 100 to 700Mb with about 130 users working 24/7. Prior to this time of stability we had VFP 9 without SP1 and more importantly cheap Gigabit or 100Mb network cards. Changing the cards to good 3Com versions solved the index/data corruption virtually overnight and the addition of SP1 made the whole system more stable. I forget the last time a C5 error appeared. As a matter of course I do a complete reindex every other stock take which occurs bi-monthly and takes about 15 minutes. Your error is more likely than not related to hardware not software and be sure to have ALL the cache options turned off on the server. As for your rewrite in VB, well if the system barfs with VFP then it will surely do the same with VB. Client server is obviously an option (as you are aware) but VFP is an ideal candidate for this without a complete rewrite, surely. I am in the process of a conversion from real VFP tables onto SQL 2K5 at the moment and although it is not simple, it's a great deal easier than a complete rewrite. Comparative testing with C# reveals little performance increase but I must admit that I do like the Eye Candy you can add to c# programs with all the 3rd party components that are available. The main reason for the upgrade being the requirement for remote VPN access as well as web access eventually. Also, the question of data security from prying eyes is a lot easier with Client/Server, as is real time data backup. From now on, specific programs that require options such as scheduling etc. will be in C# but the majority of the desktop apps will remain in VFP. I'm not a dinosaur here and accept that .Net (C#) is extremely good at some things and I really can't be bothered spending the time putting in kludgy fixes to make VFP look good - this is where I will use .NET. One thing is for sure, if you do a rewrite then you will start to find all the shortcomings of VB compared with VFP and C# and my advice would be go the C# route. C# Pro's: 1. The IDE - excellent with the Resharper 3rd party addon being a must 2. Speed - well impressive 3. Intellisense - much better than VFP 4. Added 3rd party add-ons. Why re-invent the wheel 5. Application/Program distribution - really easy 6. The ability to develop PDA applications 7. Availability of lots of learning resources - thank God! 8. Good fun once you get up to speed C# Cons: 1. No withendwith construction 2. The .NET base library of functions is just impossible to learn 3. Learning curve, not for the language basics but for .NET 4. Quirky C# syntax 5. Data Binding - this is the fault of .NET not C# but is long winded compared with VFP 6. Just when you think you've got there another revision of the language comes out or a feature such as Linq makes an appearance - DOH! At least VFP is now a stationary target. 7. I use predominantly VS2K5 and a little VS2K8 but that is now about to be superceded, so keeping up with the latest and greatest becomes a pain. VFP still has a place in the toolbox though and will do so for many a year. Well I deviated a little from the main thread there but what the hell! Dave Crozier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Flight Sent: 09 December 2008 22:39 To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: VFP index corruption We have been having indexing problems lately. In fact I was able to locate some of our weirdo problems as being indexes that actually pointed to the wrong records! Talk about disastrous! We also have large files 1-2Gb with indexes of 200Mb+. This seems to exacerbate the problem. But it has also happened ing some smaller tables. All I can tell is that because it isnt client-server and so much of the index travels down the wire that something goes wrong - regularly. We are also regularly rebuilding indexes but it is a disappointing situation. It is one thing for an index to be physically corrupted and a message telling you that; it is quite another for an index to point to the wrong record without any advice! Is this something new with SP2? I dont recall index problems being so prevalent before. I'm trying to convince my client to do a complete rewrite in VB.NET and this is one of the reasons. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Haidar Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2008 6:13 AM To: profox@leafe.com Subject: Re: VFP index corruption the size of the .DBF is 1.1 gig and the cdx is 158 Mg that would be be an issue? Jean From: Fred Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 1:15:22 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption Make sure the size of your .CDX file isn't the issue. With 29 tags and that much data in the table, you may have gone over the 2GB file limit
Re: VFP index corruption
Jean, have you got RECNO() in your index expressions ? another jean ! -- Jean MAURICE Grenoble - France - Europe www.atoutfox.org www.aedtf.org ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
RE: VFP index corruption
I agree, rewriting the whole application just for index corruption doesn't make sense. I've not had any index problems lately. In the past they have all been caused by bad hardware or opportunistic locks being turned on. --- On Wed, 12/10/08, Dave Crozier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dave Crozier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: VFP index corruption To: 'ProFox Email List' profox@leafe.com Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 4:02 AM Jean, Over the past 2 years we haven't had a single index or database corruption even though our tables are around the 1.5Gb individual size with indexes that range from 100 to 700Mb with about 130 users working 24/7. Prior to this time of stability we had VFP 9 without SP1 and more importantly cheap Gigabit or 100Mb network cards. Changing the cards to good 3Com versions solved the index/data corruption virtually overnight and the addition of SP1 made the whole system more stable. I forget the last time a C5 error appeared. As a matter of course I do a complete reindex every other stock take which occurs bi-monthly and takes about 15 minutes. Your error is more likely than not related to hardware not software and be sure to have ALL the cache options turned off on the server. As for your rewrite in VB, well if the system barfs with VFP then it will surely do the same with VB. Client server is obviously an option (as you are aware) but VFP is an ideal candidate for this without a complete rewrite, surely. I am in the process of a conversion from real VFP tables onto SQL 2K5 at the moment and although it is not simple, it's a great deal easier than a complete rewrite. Comparative testing with C# reveals little performance increase but I must admit that I do like the Eye Candy you can add to c# programs with all the 3rd party components that are available. The main reason for the upgrade being the requirement for remote VPN access as well as web access eventually. Also, the question of data security from prying eyes is a lot easier with Client/Server, as is real time data backup. From now on, specific programs that require options such as scheduling etc. will be in C# but the majority of the desktop apps will remain in VFP. I'm not a dinosaur here and accept that .Net (C#) is extremely good at some things and I really can't be bothered spending the time putting in kludgy fixes to make VFP look good - this is where I will use .NET. One thing is for sure, if you do a rewrite then you will start to find all the shortcomings of VB compared with VFP and C# and my advice would be go the C# route. C# Pro's: 1. The IDE - excellent with the Resharper 3rd party addon being a must 2. Speed - well impressive 3. Intellisense - much better than VFP 4. Added 3rd party add-ons. Why re-invent the wheel 5. Application/Program distribution - really easy 6. The ability to develop PDA applications 7. Availability of lots of learning resources - thank God! 8. Good fun once you get up to speed C# Cons: 1. No withendwith construction 2. The .NET base library of functions is just impossible to learn 3. Learning curve, not for the language basics but for .NET 4. Quirky C# syntax 5. Data Binding - this is the fault of .NET not C# but is long winded compared with VFP 6. Just when you think you've got there another revision of the language comes out or a feature such as Linq makes an appearance - DOH! At least VFP is now a stationary target. 7. I use predominantly VS2K5 and a little VS2K8 but that is now about to be superceded, so keeping up with the latest and greatest becomes a pain. VFP still has a place in the toolbox though and will do so for many a year. Well I deviated a little from the main thread there but what the hell! Dave Crozier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Flight Sent: 09 December 2008 22:39 To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: VFP index corruption We have been having indexing problems lately. In fact I was able to locate some of our weirdo problems as being indexes that actually pointed to the wrong records! Talk about disastrous! We also have large files 1-2Gb with indexes of 200Mb+. This seems to exacerbate the problem. But it has also happened ing some smaller tables. All I can tell is that because it isn’t client-server and so much of the index travels down the wire that something goes wrong - regularly. We are also regularly rebuilding indexes but it is a disappointing situation. It is one thing for an index to be physically corrupted and a message telling you that; it is quite another for an index to point to the wrong record without any advice! Is this something new with SP2? I don’t recall index problems being so prevalent before. I'm trying to convince my client to do a complete rewrite in VB.NET and this is one of the reasons. -Original
Re: VFP index corruption
I worked with a dufus who had databases related on recno(). Unbelievable. * --- On Wed, 12/10/08, Jean MAURICE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jean MAURICE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: VFP index corruption To: ProFox Email List profox@leafe.com Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 4:16 AM Jean, have you got RECNO() in your index expressions ? another jean ! -- Jean MAURICE Grenoble - France - Europe www.atoutfox.org www.aedtf.org ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
Hi Jean Just to reinforce what Dave Crozier has said, we have quite a few customers with 30+ users and tables 1Gb+. Our experience over the last several years has been that the key to stability is the network infratructure. If the hardware/network is good, monthly reindexing is sufficient and data/index corruption NEVER happens. OTOH a faulty network card, old/tired server, environmental interference (eg electrical transients), etc can lead to the sort of intermittent problems you have experienced. Of course, in that situation the only way to resolve it is change the suspect stuff bit by bit and each time leave it a few days/weeks to see if that has cured the problem - which is not ideal ... Jean Haidar wrote: We have problems with one of VFP TABLE , it give an intermittent error message like this Index file \\lrd1fil2\vfpprod\mw\mwdata\profile.cdx is corrupted. Please rebuild it. we are rebuilding the PROIFLE.DBF often ; sometimes every 2 days by using these commands: for example: USE R:\MWDATA\PROFILE in 0 select profile copy to c:\data\PROFILE.dbf USE C:\DATA\PROFILE IN 0 EXCL here we rebuild the indexes like this: INDEX ON CASE_ID TAG CASE_ID INDEX ON CUST_ID TAG CUST_ID etc.. PROIFLE has about 29 index tags and profile.dbf is about 1.1 gig in size we are able to add and update records most of the time but sometime we are getting the error message above from different processes: 1) A batch process trying to update the DBF with an update statement like this: UPDATE case_id = lcCurRecord..case_id Error get generated like 7 times between mid November to first December 2) A Error generated like 4 times between mid November to first December (lcUpdateTable) ;SET lcUpdate WHERE ;form Querying the table ( Select statement include Profile and other table) Any ideas? Thanks, Jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cheers Brian Abbott ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
RE: VFP index corruption
To be fair, index corruption isn’t the primary reason for rewriting. Its an 11yo app that started life as Fox for windows 2.6. all modal windows, lousy database architecture and in need of a savage interface rebuild. But the index corruptions are a pain and not easy to detect but I welcome the advice re hardware esp NICs. I will look at that as well. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2008 8:08 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: VFP index corruption I agree, rewriting the whole application just for index corruption doesn't make sense. I've not had any index problems lately. In the past they have all been caused by bad hardware or opportunistic locks being turned on. --- On Wed, 12/10/08, Dave Crozier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dave Crozier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: VFP index corruption To: 'ProFox Email List' profox@leafe.com Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 4:02 AM Jean, Over the past 2 years we haven't had a single index or database corruption even though our tables are around the 1.5Gb individual size with indexes that range from 100 to 700Mb with about 130 users working 24/7. Prior to this time of stability we had VFP 9 without SP1 and more importantly cheap Gigabit or 100Mb network cards. Changing the cards to good 3Com versions solved the index/data corruption virtually overnight and the addition of SP1 made the whole system more stable. I forget the last time a C5 error appeared. As a matter of course I do a complete reindex every other stock take which occurs bi-monthly and takes about 15 minutes. Your error is more likely than not related to hardware not software and be sure to have ALL the cache options turned off on the server. As for your rewrite in VB, well if the system barfs with VFP then it will surely do the same with VB. Client server is obviously an option (as you are aware) but VFP is an ideal candidate for this without a complete rewrite, surely. I am in the process of a conversion from real VFP tables onto SQL 2K5 at the moment and although it is not simple, it's a great deal easier than a complete rewrite. Comparative testing with C# reveals little performance increase but I must admit that I do like the Eye Candy you can add to c# programs with all the 3rd party components that are available. The main reason for the upgrade being the requirement for remote VPN access as well as web access eventually. Also, the question of data security from prying eyes is a lot easier with Client/Server, as is real time data backup. From now on, specific programs that require options such as scheduling etc. will be in C# but the majority of the desktop apps will remain in VFP. I'm not a dinosaur here and accept that .Net (C#) is extremely good at some things and I really can't be bothered spending the time putting in kludgy fixes to make VFP look good - this is where I will use .NET. One thing is for sure, if you do a rewrite then you will start to find all the shortcomings of VB compared with VFP and C# and my advice would be go the C# route. C# Pro's: 1. The IDE - excellent with the Resharper 3rd party addon being a must 2. Speed - well impressive 3. Intellisense - much better than VFP 4. Added 3rd party add-ons. Why re-invent the wheel 5. Application/Program distribution - really easy 6. The ability to develop PDA applications 7. Availability of lots of learning resources - thank God! 8. Good fun once you get up to speed C# Cons: 1. No withendwith construction 2. The .NET base library of functions is just impossible to learn 3. Learning curve, not for the language basics but for .NET 4. Quirky C# syntax 5. Data Binding - this is the fault of .NET not C# but is long winded compared with VFP 6. Just when you think you've got there another revision of the language comes out or a feature such as Linq makes an appearance - DOH! At least VFP is now a stationary target. 7. I use predominantly VS2K5 and a little VS2K8 but that is now about to be superceded, so keeping up with the latest and greatest becomes a pain. VFP still has a place in the toolbox though and will do so for many a year. Well I deviated a little from the main thread there but what the hell! Dave Crozier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Flight Sent: 09 December 2008 22:39 To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: VFP index corruption We have been having indexing problems lately. In fact I was able to locate some of our weirdo problems as being indexes that actually pointed to the wrong records! Talk about disastrous! We also have large files 1-2Gb with indexes of 200Mb+. This seems to exacerbate the problem. But it has also happened ing some smaller tables. All I can tell is that because it isn’t client
Re: VFP index corruption
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Dave Crozier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jean, Over the past 2 years we haven't had a single index or database corruption even though our tables are around the 1.5Gb individual size with indexes that range from 100 to 700Mb with about 130 users working 24/7. Prior to this time of stability we had VFP 9 without SP1 and more importantly cheap Gigabit or 100Mb network cards. Changing the cards to good 3Com versions solved the index/data corruption virtually overnight and the addition of SP1 made the whole system more stable. I forget the last time a C5 error appeared. As a matter of course I do a complete reindex every other stock take which occurs bi-monthly and takes about 15 minutes. Your error is more likely than not related to hardware not software and be sure to have ALL the cache options turned off on the server. As for your rewrite in VB, well if the system barfs with VFP then it will surely do the same with VB. Client server is obviously an option (as you are aware) but VFP is an ideal candidate for this without a complete rewrite, surely. I have to disagree with that last statement. As you point out this is probably a hardware problem on the NIC level. Converting to a C/S environment would fix the the initial issue. Cost wise it is a no brainer to fix the nics. hahahaha. I am in the process of a conversion from real VFP tables onto SQL 2K5 at the moment and although it is not simple, it's a great deal easier than a complete rewrite. Comparative testing with C# reveals little performance increase but I must admit that I do like the Eye Candy you can add to c# programs with all the 3rd party components that are available. The main reason for the upgrade being the requirement for remote VPN access as well as web access eventually. Also, the question of data security from prying eyes is a lot easier with Client/Server, as is real time data backup. - I am sure that the conversion to a different backend in the end is almost a full rewrite, say 75% of the entire beast? Where if that time was spent in the port as well it would be time well spent. As you stated you get multi platform web/win as well as the ability to keep your look or visual style contemporary. From now on, specific programs that require options such as scheduling etc. will be in C# but the majority of the desktop apps will remain in VFP. I'm not a dinosaur here and accept that .Net (C#) is extremely good at some things and I really can't be bothered spending the time putting in kludgy fixes to make VFP look good - this is where I will use .NET. One thing is for sure, if you do a rewrite then you will start to find all the shortcomings of VB compared with VFP and C# and my advice would be go the C# route. C# Pro's: 1. The IDE - excellent with the Resharper 3rd party addon being a must 2. Speed - well impressive 3. Intellisense - much better than VFP 4. Added 3rd party add-ons. Why re-invent the wheel 5. Application/Program distribution - really easy 6. The ability to develop PDA applications 7. Availability of lots of learning resources - thank God! 8. Good fun once you get up to speed C# Cons: 1. No withendwith construction 2. The .NET base library of functions is just impossible to learn 3. Learning curve, not for the language basics but for .NET 4. Quirky C# syntax 5. Data Binding - this is the fault of .NET not C# but is long winded compared with VFP 6. Just when you think you've got there another revision of the language comes out or a feature such as Linq makes an appearance - DOH! At least VFP is now a stationary target. 7. I use predominantly VS2K5 and a little VS2K8 but that is now about to be superceded, so keeping up with the latest and greatest becomes a pain. -- My hardest part was the brain thinking/typing in the wrong syntax. The databinding was not that tough. I wanted to get out of the automatic bind back. I wanted to pass the data/object/dataset back to my DAL class to do do all of that for me. What I found as the BEST aspect for conversion was the ability to combine projects in a solution. My DAL, data access layer, was written for connectivity with SQL Server. I did one for VFP for a one time use. I can add that DAL project to any new solution (app) I need in the future. This isn't a copy paste, just a reuse. Not I take that to the extreme, in that I have projects for web services WCF, another for the contracts that I expose, and another project for the middle layer. On top of all them thar projects I need one for testing this app and the GUI(s) associated with the app. Yes I can have a Web front end, WinForm, WPF and Silverlight as in they are all additional projects. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer Mimeo.com Memphis TN 901.246-0159 ___
VFP index corruption
We have problems with one of VFP TABLE , it give an intermittent error message like this Index file \\lrd1fil2\vfpprod\mw\mwdata\profile.cdx is corrupted. Please rebuild it. we are rebuilding the PROIFLE.DBF often ; sometimes every 2 days by using these commands: for example: USE R:\MWDATA\PROFILE in 0 select profile copy to c:\data\PROFILE.dbf USE C:\DATA\PROFILE IN 0 EXCL here we rebuild the indexes like this: INDEX ON CASE_ID TAG CASE_ID INDEX ON CUST_ID TAG CUST_ID etc.. PROIFLE has about 29 index tags and profile.dbf is about 1.1 gig in size we are able to add and update records most of the time but sometime we are getting the error message above from different processes: 1) A batch process trying to update the DBF with an update statement like this: UPDATE case_id = lcCurRecord..case_id Error get generated like 7 times between mid November to first December 2) A Error generated like 4 times between mid November to first December (lcUpdateTable) ; SET lcUpdate WHERE ;form Querying the table ( Select statement include Profile and other table) Any ideas? Thanks, Jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
Correction below in Section 1) and 2) From: Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:19:41 PM Subject: VFP index corruption UPDATE (lcUpdateTable) ; SET lcUpdate WHERE case_id = lcCurRecord..case_id Error get generated like 7 times between mid November to first December 2) A form Querying the table ( Select statement include Profile and other table) Error generated like 4 times between mid November to first December Any ideas? Thanks, Jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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. Report [OT] Abuse: http://leafe.com/reportAbuse/[EMAIL PROTECTED] We have problems with one of VFP TABLE , it give an intermittent error message like this Index file \\lrd1fil2\vfpprod\mw\mwdata\profile.cdx is corrupted. Please rebuild it. we are rebuilding the PROIFLE.DBF often ; sometimes every 2 days by using these commands: for example: USE R:\MWDATA\PROFILE in 0 select profile copy to c:\data\PROFILE.dbf USE C:\DATA\PROFILE IN 0 EXCL here we rebuild the indexes like this: INDEX ON CASE_ID TAG CASE_ID INDEX ON CUST_ID TAG CUST_ID etc.. PROIFLE has about 29 index tags and profile.dbf is about 1.1 gig in size we are able to add and update records most of the time but sometime we are getting the error message above from different processes: 1) A batch process trying to update the DBF with an update statement like this: --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
Jean Haidar wrote: We have problems with one of VFP TABLE , it give an intermittent error message like this Index file \\lrd1fil2\vfpprod\mw\mwdata\profile.cdx is corrupted. Please rebuild it. we are rebuilding the PROIFLE.DBF often ; sometimes every 2 days by using these commands: for example: USE R:\MWDATA\PROFILE in 0 select profile copy to c:\data\PROFILE.dbf USE C:\DATA\PROFILE IN 0 EXCL here we rebuild the indexes like this: INDEX ON CASE_ID TAG CASE_ID INDEX ON CUST_ID TAG CUST_ID etc.. PROIFLE has about 29 index tags and profile.dbf is about 1.1 gig in size we are able to add and update records most of the time but sometime we are getting the error message above from different processes: 1) A batch process trying to update the DBF with an update statement like this: UPDATE case_id = lcCurRecord..case_id Error get generated like 7 times between mid November to first December 2) A Error generated like 4 times between mid November to first December (lcUpdateTable) ;SET lcUpdate WHERE ;form Querying the table ( Select statement include Profile and other table) Any ideas? Thanks, Jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Jean, There's a problem called Stonefield Database Toolkit that is absolutely great at DBF index and structure maintenance. Check it out here: http://stonefield.com/sdt.aspx It's absolutely worth the $495 price. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
On Tue, December 9, 2008 1:57 pm, MB Software Solutions General Account wrote: There's a problem called Stonefield Database Toolkit that is absolutely great at DBF index and structure maintenance. Check it out here: http://stonefield.com/sdt.aspx It's absolutely worth the $495 price. DOH! There's a PROGRAM (not problem!). Sorry, Doug! It's a wonderful product ;-) ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
VFP Index corruption
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0-749394822-1228847815=:78166
--0-749394822-1228847815=:78166
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
this is the 2nd=A0Posting, the first one was unclear..=0A=0AWe have=A0 prob=
lems with one of VFP TABLE , it give an intermittent error message like thi=
s=0A=0AIndex file \\lrd1fil2\vfpprod\mw\mwdata\profile.cdx is corrupted. =
Please rebuild it.=A0=A0 =0A=A0=0Awe are rebuilding the PROIFLE.DBF often ;=
sometimes every 2 days=A0 by using these commands:=0A=A0=0Afor example: =
=0A=A0=0AUSE=A0 R:\MWDATA\PROFILE=A0 in 0 =0Aselect profile=0Acopy to c:\da=
ta\PROFILE.dbf=0A=A0USE C:\DATA\PROFILE IN 0 EXCL=0A=A0=0Ahere we rebuild t=
he indexes like=A0 this:=0A=A0=0AINDEX ON=A0 CASE_ID TAG CASE_ID=0AINDEX ON=
=A0 CUST_ID TAG CUST_ID=0Aetc..=0A=A0=0APROIFLE has about 29 index tags and=
profile.dbf is about=A0 1.1 gig in size=0A=A0=0Awe are able to=A0 add and=
=A0update records=A0most of the time but sometime we are=A0getting the erro=
r message above =0Afrom different processes:=0A=A0=0A1) =A0 A batch process=
trying to update the DBF=A0 with an update statement like=A0 this:=0A=0A=
=A0=A0=A0=A0 UPDATE=A0=A0(lcUpdateTable) ;=0A=A0=A0=A0 SET lcUpdate WHERE=
=0A=A0=A0=A0 case_id =3D lcCurRecord..case_id=0A=A0=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0Error ge=
t generated=A0like 7 times between mid November to first December=0A=A0=0A2=
)=A0A=A0form Querying the table ( Select statement include Profile and othe=
r table)=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0 Error generated like=A0 4 times=A0 between mid Nove=
mber to first December=0A=A0=0AAny ideas?=0A=A0=0AThanks,=0AJean=0Ajhhaidar=
@sbcglobal.net=0A
--0-749394822-1228847815=:78166
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
htmlheadstyle type=text/css!-- DIV {margin:0px;}
--/style/headbodydiv style=font-family:times new roman, new york,
times, serif;font-size:12ptDIVthis is the 2ndnbsp;Posting, the first one
was unclear../DIV
DIVnbsp;/DIV
DIVWe havenbsp; problems with one of VFP TABLE , it give an intermittent
error message like thisBRBRIndex file
\\lrd1fil2\vfpprod\mw\mwdata\profile.cdx is corrupted. Please rebuild
it.nbsp;nbsp; BRnbsp;BRwe are rebuilding the PROIFLE.DBF often ;
sometimes every 2 daysnbsp; by using these commands:BRnbsp;BRfor example:
BRnbsp;BRUSEnbsp; R:\MWDATA\PROFILEnbsp; in 0 BRselect profileBRcopy
to c:\data\PROFILE.dbfBRnbsp;USE C:\DATA\PROFILE IN 0 EXCLBRnbsp;BRhere
we rebuild the indexes likenbsp; this:BRnbsp;BRINDEX ONnbsp; CASE_ID TAG
CASE_IDBRINDEX ONnbsp; CUST_ID TAG CUST_IDBRetc..BRnbsp;BRPROIFLE has
about 29 index tags and profile.dbf is aboutnbsp; 1.1 gig in
sizeBRnbsp;BRwe are able tonbsp; add andnbsp;update recordsnbsp;most of
the time but sometime we arenbsp;getting the error message above BRfrom
different processes:BRnbsp;BRSTRONG1) nbsp; A batch process trying to
update the
DBFnbsp; with an update statement likenbsp; this:/STRONG/DIV
DIVBRnbsp;nbsp;STRONGnbsp;nbsp; UPDATEnbsp;nbsp;(lcUpdateTable)
;/STRONG/DIV
DIVSTRONGnbsp;nbsp;nbsp; SET amp;lcUpdate WHEREBRnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;
case_id =
amp;lcCurRecord..case_idBR/STRONGnbsp;BRnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;STRONG
Error get generatednbsp;like 7 times between mid November to first
DecemberBR/STRONGnbsp;BR2)nbsp;STRONGAnbsp;form Querying the table (
Select statement include Profile and other table)BRnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;
Error generated likenbsp; 4 timesnbsp; between mid November to first
December/STRONGBRnbsp;BRAny ideas?BRnbsp;BRThanks,BRJeanBRA
href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ymailto=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]SPAN
class=yshortcuts id=lw_1228847205_0[EMAIL
PROTECTED]/SPAN/ABR/DIV/div/body/html
--0-749394822-1228847815=:78166--
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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.
Re: VFP index corruption
we are only dealing with DBF not DBF/DBC. What methology the SDT utility is using in terms of fixing indexes other than what we currently doing? do you know? use CUSTOMER delete tag all index on CUST_ID tag CUST_ID index on POSTALCODE tag POSTALCODE Thanks, Jean From: MB Software Solutions General Account [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:57:56 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption Jean Haidar wrote: We have problems with one of VFP TABLE , it give an intermittent error message like this Index file \\lrd1fil2\vfpprod\mw\mwdata\profile.cdx is corrupted. Please rebuild it. we are rebuilding the PROIFLE.DBF often ; sometimes every 2 days by using these commands: for example: USE R:\MWDATA\PROFILE in 0 select profile copy to c:\data\PROFILE.dbf USE C:\DATA\PROFILE IN 0 EXCL here we rebuild the indexes like this: INDEX ON CASE_ID TAG CASE_ID INDEX ON CUST_ID TAG CUST_ID etc.. PROIFLE has about 29 index tags and profile.dbf is about 1.1 gig in size we are able to add and update records most of the time but sometime we are getting the error message above from different processes: 1) A batch process trying to update the DBF with an update statement like this: UPDATE case_id = lcCurRecord..case_id Error get generated like 7 times between mid November to first December 2) A Error generated like 4 times between mid November to first December (lcUpdateTable) ; SET lcUpdate WHERE ;form Querying the table ( Select statement include Profile and other table) Any ideas? Thanks, Jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Jean, There's a problem called Stonefield Database Toolkit that is absolutely great at DBF index and structure maintenance. Check it out here: http://stonefield.com/sdt.aspx It's absolutely worth the $495 price. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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. Report [OT] Abuse: http://leafe.com/reportAbuse/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
1. Check the event log of the computer that holds the data to see that there are no bad blocks or other disk problems in the event logs. 2. Make sure opportunistic locking is turned off on the server. 3. Run scan disk ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
Jean Haidar wrote: we are only dealing with DBF not DBF/DBC. What methology the SDT utility is using in terms of fixing indexes other than what we currently doing? do you know? use CUSTOMER delete tag all index on CUST_ID tag CUST_ID index on POSTALCODE tag POSTALCODE SDT uses meta-data extensively. It's been very reliable for me over the many years, and for others here as well. Search the ProFox archivesbut to be fair, I think Ed's search doesn't work for 3 character search terms, so you'll have to use Stonefield as your searchable text. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP Index corruption
Send raw textno HTML!!! Jean Haidar wrote: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0-749394822-1228847815=:78166 --0-749394822-1228847815=:78166 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable this is the 2nd=A0Posting, the first one was unclear..=0A=0AWe have=A0 prob= lems with one of VFP TABLE , it give an intermittent error message like thi= s=0A=0AIndex file \\lrd1fil2\vfpprod\mw\mwdata\profile.cdx is corrupted. = Please rebuild it.=A0=A0 =0A=A0=0Awe are rebuilding the PROIFLE.DBF often ;= sometimes every 2 days=A0 by using these commands:=0A=A0=0Afor example: = =0A=A0=0AUSE=A0 R:\MWDATA\PROFILE=A0 in 0 =0Aselect profile=0Acopy to c:\da= ta\PROFILE.dbf=0A=A0USE C:\DATA\PROFILE IN 0 EXCL=0A=A0=0Ahere we rebuild t= he indexes like=A0 this:=0A=A0=0AINDEX ON=A0 CASE_ID TAG CASE_ID=0AINDEX ON= =A0 CUST_ID TAG CUST_ID=0Aetc..=0A=A0=0APROIFLE has about 29 index tags and= profile.dbf is about=A0 1.1 gig in size=0A=A0=0Awe are able to=A0 add and= =A0update records=A0most of the time but sometime we are=A0getting the erro= snipped ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
Jean, I think I agree with you i.e. why look for a toolkit when your command is perfectly legitimate I think you're saying this problem started just recently. I had a similar issue, and the problem went away after I re-booted the Server. Then it came back I copied all the tables + cdx's to a different folder. Problem went away. Then it came back I freed up diskspace (it was down to 1 gig on a 200 gig server) Problem went away (2 weeks ago and still not back.) Sytze On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we are only dealing with DBF not DBF/DBC. What methology the SDT utility is using in terms of fixing indexes other than what we currently doing? do you know? use CUSTOMER delete tag all index on CUST_ID tag CUST_ID index on POSTALCODE tag POSTALCODE Thanks, Jean From: MB Software Solutions General Account [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:57:56 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption Jean Haidar wrote: We have problems with one of VFP TABLE , it give an intermittent error message like this Index file \\lrd1fil2\vfpprod\mw\mwdata\profile.cdx is corrupted. Please rebuild it. we are rebuilding the PROIFLE.DBF often ; sometimes every 2 days by using these commands: for example: USE R:\MWDATA\PROFILE in 0 select profile copy to c:\data\PROFILE.dbf USE C:\DATA\PROFILE IN 0 EXCL here we rebuild the indexes like this: INDEX ON CASE_ID TAG CASE_ID INDEX ON CUST_ID TAG CUST_ID etc.. PROIFLE has about 29 index tags and profile.dbf is about 1.1 gig in size we are able to add and update records most of the time but sometime we are getting the error message above from different processes: 1) A batch process trying to update the DBF with an update statement like this: UPDATE case_id = lcCurRecord..case_id Error get generated like 7 times between mid November to first December 2) A Error generated like 4 times between mid November to first December (lcUpdateTable) ;SET lcUpdate WHERE ;form Querying the table ( Select statement include Profile and other table) Any ideas? Thanks, Jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Jean, There's a problem called Stonefield Database Toolkit that is absolutely great at DBF index and structure maintenance. Check it out here: http://stonefield.com/sdt.aspx It's absolutely worth the $495 price. [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
The data reside on Citrix Server and it is not eady to request changes from the Citrix Team? we are rebuilding the index every few days If it is a bad block? don't you think this error would pop up in another Index File or some other DBF file? Thanks, Jean From: Michael Madigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:57:11 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption 1. Check the event log of the computer that holds the data to see that there are no bad blocks or other disk problems in the event logs. 2. Make sure opportunistic locking is turned off on the server. 3. Run scan disk ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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. Report [OT] Abuse: http://leafe.com/reportAbuse/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
OK, same scenario as mine, except my issue was Terminal Server S On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The data reside on Citrix Server and it is not eady to request changes from the Citrix Team? we are rebuilding the index every few days If it is a bad block? don't you think this error would pop up in another Index File or some other DBF file? Thanks, Jean From: Michael Madigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:57:11 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption 1. Check the event log of the computer that holds the data to see that there are no bad blocks or other disk problems in the event logs. 2. Make sure opportunistic locking is turned off on the server. 3. Run scan disk [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
Make sure the size of your .CDX file isn't the issue. With 29 tags and that much data in the table, you may have gone over the 2GB file limit. Fred On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The data reside on Citrix Server and it is not eady to request changes from the Citrix Team? we are rebuilding the index every few days If it is a bad block? don't you think this error would pop up in another Index File or some other DBF file? Thanks, Jean From: Michael Madigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:57:11 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption 1. Check the event log of the computer that holds the data to see that there are no bad blocks or other disk problems in the event logs. 2. Make sure opportunistic locking is turned off on the server. 3. Run scan disk [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
Yes, the issue started recently.. Jean From: Sytze de Boer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 1:09:26 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption Jean, I think I agree with you i.e. why look for a toolkit when your command is perfectly legitimate I think you're saying this problem started just recently. I had a similar issue, and the problem went away after I re-booted the Server. Then it came back I copied all the tables + cdx's to a different folder. Problem went away. Then it came back I freed up diskspace (it was down to 1 gig on a 200 gig server) Problem went away (2 weeks ago and still not back.) Sytze On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we are only dealing with DBF not DBF/DBC. What methology the SDT utility is using in terms of fixing indexes other than what we currently doing? do you know? use CUSTOMER delete tag all index on CUST_ID tag CUST_ID index on POSTALCODE tag POSTALCODE Thanks, Jean From: MB Software Solutions General Account [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:57:56 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption Jean Haidar wrote: We have problems with one of VFP TABLE , it give an intermittent error message like this Index file \\lrd1fil2\vfpprod\mw\mwdata\profile.cdx is corrupted. Please rebuild it. we are rebuilding the PROIFLE.DBF often ; sometimes every 2 days by using these commands: for example: USE R:\MWDATA\PROFILE in 0 select profile copy to c:\data\PROFILE.dbf USE C:\DATA\PROFILE IN 0 EXCL here we rebuild the indexes like this: INDEX ON CASE_ID TAG CASE_ID INDEX ON CUST_ID TAG CUST_ID etc.. PROIFLE has about 29 index tags and profile.dbf is about 1.1 gig in size we are able to add and update records most of the time but sometime we are getting the error message above from different processes: 1) A batch process trying to update the DBF with an update statement like this: UPDATE case_id = lcCurRecord..case_id Error get generated like 7 times between mid November to first December 2) A Error generated like 4 times between mid November to first December (lcUpdateTable) ; SET lcUpdate WHERE ;form Querying the table ( Select statement include Profile and other table) Any ideas? Thanks, Jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Jean, There's a problem called Stonefield Database Toolkit that is absolutely great at DBF index and structure maintenance. Check it out here: http://stonefield.com/sdt.aspx It's absolutely worth the $495 price. [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
the size of the .DBF is 1.1 gig and the cdx is 158 Mg that would be be an issue? Jean From: Fred Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 1:15:22 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption Make sure the size of your .CDX file isn't the issue. With 29 tags and that much data in the table, you may have gone over the 2GB file limit. Fred On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The data reside on Citrix Server and it is not eady to request changes from the Citrix Team? we are rebuilding the index every few days If it is a bad block? don't you think this error would pop up in another Index File or some other DBF file? Thanks, Jean From: Michael Madigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:57:11 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption 1. Check the event log of the computer that holds the data to see that there are no bad blocks or other disk problems in the event logs. 2. Make sure opportunistic locking is turned off on the server. 3. Run scan disk [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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. Report [OT] Abuse: http://leafe.com/reportAbuse/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
No, the size should only be an issue if the .CDX file goes over the 2GB boundary. Fred On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the size of the .DBF is 1.1 gig and the cdx is 158 Mg that would be be an issue? Jean From: Fred Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 1:15:22 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption Make sure the size of your .CDX file isn't the issue. With 29 tags and that much data in the table, you may have gone over the 2GB file limit. Fred On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The data reside on Citrix Server and it is not eady to request changes from the Citrix Team? we are rebuilding the index every few days If it is a bad block? don't you think this error would pop up in another Index File or some other DBF file? Thanks, Jean From: Michael Madigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:57:11 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption 1. Check the event log of the computer that holds the data to see that there are no bad blocks or other disk problems in the event logs. 2. Make sure opportunistic locking is turned off on the server. 3. Run scan disk [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
Not necessarily. I have a bad block on my computer that only causes issues when I'm near capacity. When I delete junk off the disk to bring it down to about 15% free, then the problem goes away. I've tried repairing it over and over again, but it still pops up. And like the other guy said, you may be running close to capacity on that disk too. --- On Tue, 12/9/08, Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: VFP index corruption To: profox@leafe.com Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 2:11 PM The data reside on Citrix Server and it is not eady to request changes from the Citrix Team? we are rebuilding the index every few days If it is a bad block? don't you think this error would pop up in another Index File or some other DBF file? Thanks, Jean From: Michael Madigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:57:11 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption 1. Check the event log of the computer that holds the data to see that there are no bad blocks or other disk problems in the event logs. 2. Make sure opportunistic locking is turned off on the server. 3. Run scan disk [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
Re: VFP index corruption
We reindex our databases every night and it has seemed to make many issues go away. --- On Tue, 12/9/08, Fred Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Fred Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: VFP index corruption To: ProFox Email List profox@leafe.com Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 3:35 PM No, the size should only be an issue if the .CDX file goes over the 2GB boundary. Fred On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the size of the .DBF is 1.1 gig and the cdx is 158 Mg that would be be an issue? Jean From: Fred Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 1:15:22 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption Make sure the size of your .CDX file isn't the issue. With 29 tags and that much data in the table, you may have gone over the 2GB file limit. Fred On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The data reside on Citrix Server and it is not eady to request changes from the Citrix Team? we are rebuilding the index every few days If it is a bad block? don't you think this error would pop up in another Index File or some other DBF file? Thanks, Jean From: Michael Madigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:57:11 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption 1. Check the event log of the computer that holds the data to see that there are no bad blocks or other disk problems in the event logs. 2. Make sure opportunistic locking is turned off on the server. 3. Run scan disk [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
RE: VFP index corruption
We have been having indexing problems lately. In fact I was able to locate some of our weirdo problems as being indexes that actually pointed to the wrong records! Talk about disastrous! We also have large files 1-2Gb with indexes of 200Mb+. This seems to exacerbate the problem. But it has also happened ing some smaller tables. All I can tell is that because it isnt client-server and so much of the index travels down the wire that something goes wrong - regularly. We are also regularly rebuilding indexes but it is a disappointing situation. It is one thing for an index to be physically corrupted and a message telling you that; it is quite another for an index to point to the wrong record without any advice! Is this something new with SP2? I dont recall index problems being so prevalent before. I'm trying to convince my client to do a complete rewrite in VB.NET and this is one of the reasons. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Haidar Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2008 6:13 AM To: profox@leafe.com Subject: Re: VFP index corruption the size of the .DBF is 1.1 gig and the cdx is 158 Mg that would be be an issue? Jean From: Fred Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 1:15:22 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption Make sure the size of your .CDX file isn't the issue. With 29 tags and that much data in the table, you may have gone over the 2GB file limit. Fred On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Jean Haidar [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The data reside on Citrix Server and it is not eady to request changes from the Citrix Team? we are rebuilding the index every few days If it is a bad block? don't you think this error would pop up in another Index File or some other DBF file? Thanks, Jean From: Michael Madigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:57:11 PM Subject: Re: VFP index corruption 1. Check the event log of the computer that holds the data to see that there are no bad blocks or other disk problems in the event logs. 2. Make sure opportunistic locking is turned off on the server. 3. Run scan disk [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
