On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, at 11:28 AM, Ted Roche wrote:
> which is a bad
> idea, SMB Caching or turning it off?
Turning it off.
--
Alan Bourke
alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maint
oxTech On Behalf Of Alan Bourke
Sent: Tuesday, 03 September 2019 11:10
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: Re: SMB
New in Server 2019 it appears.
At a guess, with regards to VFP applications, it would be similar to existing
methods which turn off SMB caching, i.e. a bad idea as it will hammer
perfo
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:10 AM Alan Bourke wrote:
> New in Server 2019 it appears.
>
> At a guess, with regards to VFP applications, it would be similar to
> existing methods which turn off SMB caching, i.e. a bad idea as it will
> hammer performance.
>
Sorry to be dense, bu
New in Server 2019 it appears.
At a guess, with regards to VFP applications, it would be similar to existing
methods which turn off SMB caching, i.e. a bad idea as it will hammer
performance.
--
Alan Bourke
alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
Has anyone got any thoughts on
New-SMBMapping -UseWriteThrough $True
-Original Message-
From: ProfoxTech On Behalf Of MB Software
Solutions, LLC
Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2019 14:44
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: Re: SMB
On 8/27/2019 8:29 AM, Frank Cazabon wrote:
> Hi Chris,
&g
On 8/27/2019 8:29 AM, Frank Cazabon wrote:
Hi Chris,
I moved away from DBF and DBC a long time ago but I don't think it was
very difficult to check the registry settings manually.
Yep...same here. I haven't designed major apps with DBFs since I saw
Bob Lee use a MySQL database in New York
Brilliant Alan thanks I will give it a shot
> On 27 Aug 2019, at 14:32, Alan Bourke wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, at 11:57 AM, Chris Davis wrote:
>>
>> or at least allow you to compare two setups?
>
> Go to server 1 and run PowerShell as administrator.
>
> Then
>
>
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, at 11:57 AM, Chris Davis wrote:
> or at least allow you to compare two setups?
Go to server 1 and run PowerShell as administrator.
Then
Get-SmbServerConfiguration > server1-serverconfig.txt
Get-SmbClientConfiguration > server1-clientconfig.txt
then repeat on server 2,
by different
third parties and so my end goal is advice to those companies on how to
configure the server they have supplied to run this application.
Some of the advice given from the software vendor is to change these settings
on the client which is why I was focusing on SMB.
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE
Subject: Re: SMB
Hi Chris,
I moved away from DBF and DBC a long time ago but I don't think it was very
difficult to check the registry settings manually.
There is a tool available here:
http://www.symantec.com/connect/downloads/smb2-toggle-too-mikes-tool-set
Here are my notes from back
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:58 AM Chris Davis wrote:
>
> With any networked VFP application sharing a DBC the SMB performance of
> the server hosting the DBC is very important?
>
No.
Yes, network performance is very important, but that is a complex mix of
network throughput, latency
nect to another Vista computer, and
in that case, the computer that is "serving" the shares is considered to
be the "server".
Here's how SMB is used when related to SMB versions:
When a Windows Server 2008/Vista "client" connects to a Windows Server
2008/Vista "server"
Hi All
With any networked VFP application sharing a DBC the SMB performance of the
server hosting the DBC is very important?
Assuming your answer to the above question is Yes or Of Course, then when you
have one server that seems to perform well and one that doesn't it would be
useful
/ SMB
I have never needed to go near any disk write caching settings since Windows
95/98 days. YMMV.
There is also file lock caching to do with SMB.
--
Alan Bourke
alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015, at 09:11 AM, Allen wrote:
Does this mean that write ahead cache
Corruption / SMB
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, at 02:32 PM, Man-wai Chang wrote:
In addition to un-necessary caching, you also need to disable
opportunistic locking (oplocks) in Samba.
No, you don't. Leave the caching alone. it's there for a reason. If you're
having to mess with caching on a regular basis
That's an interesting endorsement. I've been burned so many times by index or
table corruption due to SMB issues that it's been really hard to trust MS when
they say No, really. We've fixed it this time.
--
rk
-Original Message-
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Alan Bourke alanpbou...@fastmail.fm wrote:
No, you don't. Leave the caching alone. it's there for a reason. If
you're having to mess with caching on a regular basis, you need to be
looking at your program code.
All kinds of write caching is evil, in my
Does this mean that write ahead cache on the disk drive can be safely left
on? And is this win 7 and 8 or just servers?
Al
-Original Message-
From: Dave Crozier
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:20 AM
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: RE: Index Corruption / SMB
+1 for Alan's comment
I have never needed to go near any disk write caching settings since
Windows 95/98 days. YMMV.
There is also file lock caching to do with SMB.
--
Alan Bourke
alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015, at 09:11 AM, Allen wrote:
Does this mean that write ahead cache
In addition to un-necessary caching, you also need to disable
opportunistic locking (oplocks) in Samba.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Chris Davis chr...@actongate.co.uk wrote:
We have been for a while disabling SMB2 and in general this seems to remove
any issues.
Although we have one site
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, at 02:32 PM, Man-wai Chang wrote:
In addition to un-necessary caching, you also need to disable
opportunistic locking (oplocks) in Samba.
No, you don't. Leave the caching alone. it's there for a reason. If
you're having to mess with caching on a regular basis, you need to
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Chris Davis chr...@actongate.co.uk wrote:
Although we have one site which despite this still seems to have regular
index corruption.
The shaky implementation of SMB2 was just the latest thing to cause
index corruption, which we've had in Fox since we put it on
Super thanks for this, we will try enabling it and applying the hotfix.
-Original Message-
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Alan Bourke
Sent: 09 March 2015 10:49
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Index Corruption / SMB
Also the below just applies
The situation in my opinion is:
Leave SMB and caching settings alone.
There were issues with Server 2008 at one point which have long since
been fixed, however you should install the Enterprise Hotfix Rollup on
Server 2008 and Windows 7 to avail of further fixes to SMB which you
will not have
Also the below just applies to Server 2008. With Server 2012 thus far I
have not had to do anything.
--
Alan Bourke
alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015, at 10:41 AM, Alan Bourke wrote:
The situation in my opinion is:
Leave SMB and caching settings alone.
There were
Morning All
Could I raise this old chestnut please.
Just looking really for what's considered the correct configuration for Windows
Server 2008/2012.
We have been for a while disabling SMB2 and in general this seems to remove any
issues.
Although we have one site which despite this still
I think you need to disable all sort of writing-caching as well as
opportunistic caching
I suspect you don't have to disable SMB2, which is just a protocol.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Chris Davis chr...@actongate.co.uk wrote:
We have been for a while disabling SMB2 and in general this
On Dec 15, 2006, at 6:13 PM, MB Software Solutions wrote:
But Chet's point *is* valid---there are more SMBs than big dog
enterprises. SMBs make up most of the economy, iirc.
Sorry for the OT drift, but comments like these are so common that a
bit of reality is to the common good. I have
393631
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh
Sent: 17 December 2006 17:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [NF] SMB, was microsoft_antipiracy...
On Dec 15, 2006, at 6:13 PM, MB Software Solutions wrote:
But Chet's
Big corporations aren't necessarily evil (although their actions and
effects on the social and physical environment typically are) but they
are DEFINITELY toxic work environments...
Your cogent description of the capitalist system is probably correct
from the point of view of economics but
30 matches
Mail list logo
