Slow Access 97 since moving to new 2003 Server

  • Thread starter Thread starter andrewsplatt
  • Start date Start date
A

andrewsplatt

We have an access 97 MDB that we had on an NT4.0 server. We have
about 30 wrksts that have mdb front ends loaded locally to access the
MDB backend. All was great until this evening when we decided to
ditch the 9 yr old NT 4 server and replace it with a Dell Dual Xeon
2003 R2 server. All data copied form the old server to the new server
was perfect. Performance increases were everywhere when we talk about
network thru put. However, once we try to get the workstations in to
the database on the new server, performance leaves and QUICK !. To
compare, the old server/workstation combo would take about 5 seconds
to open the database and about 7 seconds to perform a filter. Now on
the new blazing fast server we open the SAME database on the same
workstations in about 15-20 seconds and a filter takes over 2
minutes. Again, the workstations have not changed. The front end
still lives in the exact same place on the workstations and the
backend lives on the same mapped drive (just a different server). I
have read about a TCP ACK timeout that could be the cause. I have
also read about the ever present OpLock issue. Can someone who has
experienced this please help. The server needs to be up in 2 days so
converting to SQL is not going to fix the issue right now. Possibly
in a few months, but not immediately.

Thanks
Andrew Platt
 
The first thing I would try is to make sure you have a persistent
connection.

So, in your database start-up code, open a table in the back end to a global
defined reocrdset.

This reocrdset MUST stay open at all times. Now, try some of those
operations, and see if they return back to previous performance levels...

Try that trick..and then post back here (so, others can learn if it helped
you).

Other things to check is any virus software running on the server..and thus
it is
scanning the mdb file when you attempt to use them....
 
We have an access 97 MDB that we had on an NT4.0 server. We have
about 30 wrksts that have mdb front ends loaded locally to access the
MDB backend. All was great until this evening when we decided to
ditch the 9 yr old NT 4 server and replace it with a Dell Dual Xeon
2003 R2 server. All data copied form the old server to the new server
was perfect. Performance increases were everywhere when we talk about
network thru put. However, once we try to get the workstations in to
the database on the new server, performance leaves and QUICK !. To
compare, the old server/workstation combo would take about 5 seconds
to open the database and about 7 seconds to perform a filter. Now on
the new blazing fast server we open the SAME database on the same
workstations in about 15-20 seconds and a filter takes over 2
minutes.
Click to expand...

See the Disable Server Message Block (SMB) Signing section at
http://granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm

Tony

--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
 
converting to sql will not fix the problem?

what the **** are you talking about

you ****ing newbie; you need to learn how to write SQL

****ing dipshit

go play in the freeway you ****ing dipshit

moving to SQL _IS_ the first step towards resolving database problems

MDB is for lamers and retards
 
what a stupid f***ing reccomendation

move to SQL Server ja***ss
Click to expand...

Note to lurkers.

Note that this person is really A a r o n K e m p f and that he is not an employee
of Microsoft.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
 
Tony

you're full of crap

I never claimed to be an employee of anybody

I just choose to list my 'favorite stock to short' in my username /
caption
 
oh movnig to SQL won't fix it?

are you kidding me?

why in the hell would you still be using Access 97?

bunch of retards
learn some strategy and stfu kid
 
Back
Top