win98 vs win95 with TCP/IP

[David Collier-Brown]

"Marcus Graf" <mg at graf.weinheim.de> wrote:
> There is another point I've reported to samba-bugs a few days ago:
> 
> We've experienced a great *loss* in performance when migrating an
> Access application (MDB file > 16 MB) from a slow NT-Server
> (486DX-66, NT 3.51 server) to a muxh faster Samba server (P166, 64
> MB, Linux 2.0.35, Samba 1.9.18p10.) The workstations are connected
> via a 100 MBit fast ethernet.
> 
> With one workstation using the database it ran normal. With two
> warkstations it slowed down. With four workstations the application
> was unusable (> 2 minutes for one query)

	AHA!
	It would have been easier if you'd mentioned a bit more about
	the nature of the problem earlier (:-))

	You've hit the oplocks issue: you want ``oplocks=no'' on
	the share with the database, if that's all that's in
	the share, or ``veto oplock files = this.dbx/that.dbx/theother''
	if the ``database'' is individual files in a share.

	Oplocks give superior speed on non-shared files, by
	caching them locally.  One should never share the
	files of a database across a network: one should have the
	clients call the database server instead.  If you have
	a pc database that tries to share across a networked 
	filesystem, you need to turn local caching off, for
	both performance and consistency.

	I generally regard single-user file-based PC ``databases'' as
	being the same sort of thing as free samples of crack
	cocaine (:-()

--dave 
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave.,   | and astonish the rest.        -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario   | davecb at hobbes.ss.org, canada.sun.com
N2M 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb