Sort Slow when FM5 Server hosted

[dvh71]

I'm new to the whole FM thing, but I've been building software using Oracle, SQL Server and PostgreSQL for several years now (Java and Web frontends).

I've been developing a replacement invoicing app for a company I've purchased, building it relationally. My customers/invoicing app has 9 files, only ~900 customers, and currently no invoices.

When I build and use the files off my local machine (G4-400/256MB), customer list sorts on name (character, indexed) and number (number, indexed) perform as expected (read: very quickly). When I move them to be hosted on the FM Server (G4-400/256MB) running FM Server 5 and Retrospect Server (it's the only place I can run it, and it only runs at night), my sort performance goes to s**t (thus the post in this forum). It takes about 25 to 35 seconds to do the same sorts described earlier.

The screen has a number and a name from the file displayed in Browse mode.

I've turned off file sharing on the Server which boosted File | Open | Hosts performance, but that didn't fix the problem.

It would seem that a simple sort on a stored, indexed field with a record count of only 800 should perform much faster.

I'm really hoping I'm missing some newbie issue that I haven't had experience with yet. ANY and ALL insight into this issue would be greatly appreciated.

[Kurt Knippel]

Running anything over the network is like 100x slower than doing it on your local drive.

That said, you may still have FMS setup incorrectly.

First of all get FMS and Retrospect seperated. This is NOT the only computer that can run this software, regardless of what time it runs.

You did not mention what OS version you are running so I am just going to give my standard OS 8/9 advise.

Unless you are going to run a RAM disk, 256MB RAM is way to much. FMS should NOT have more than 40MB allocated to it. Anything more and you are just making the processer waste time managing it.

Make sure that you strip the OS down to only the most necessary of extensions, FMS requires almost none, you extension set should look like it did in OS 6/7 days with only about a dozen or so needed (OS 9.x needs more than OS 8.x does). I have found that OS 9.04 is the best MacOS for running FMS.

Make sure that FMS is in the foreground, or use a product like Peek-a-Boo by Clarkwood Software for managing the processor priorities given to various apps.

[Anatoli]

I did just sort of 4900 records on Windows 2000 server and client in 6-7 seconds.

Sure you have some king of problem there...

[dvh71]

I apoligize for wasting bandwidth here. I just figured this out.

After reading the best practices from FM and other posts here, I put the app on the server into the foreground and things are as snappy as ever. I guess OS9 isn't fully pre-emptive? Or something of the like?

Like I said, I'm knew to the whole Mac world (Linux/Windows background). Either way, we just bought this business and the poor folks here have been suffering with that slow performance for 2 years now.

BTW, the machine has 256MB, I had allocated 40MB to 100MB to FMS, but I'm dropping that tonight after everyone's off the system and I can restart it, thanks to all the recommendations.

I'm anxious to install OSX.2 and check out how they have the BSD system set up, but I've had a few folks warn me to be wary, as print driver and software support can be spotty.

Thanks for your help. And I apoligize again for wasting time...

[Kurt Knippel]

Only AmigaDOS, Linux and maybe Win2k are implemented with Pre-emptive multi-tasking, all others (including MacOS 9.x) use some method of cooperative multi-tasking.

The background/foreground thing is just a quirk of the MacOS Finder application and how it hogs the processor when it is active. This is why I use the Peek-a-boo software to set the processor priorities of various system apps.

[Anatoli]

NT4, W2K and XP Pro are with full Pre-emptive multi-tasking.

Not the W9x gizmos.

[Kurt Knippel]

I could not remember if NT4 had this, and Win2K and XP Pro are basically built off the same kernel.

Isn't XP Pro basically the upgrade to Win2K?

Win95, 98, ME and XP Home are all the 16 bit DOS based systems which do NOT do pre-emptive multi-tasking.

[kennedy]

Mac OS X has pre-emptive multi-tasking.

[Anatoli]

RE: Isn't XP Pro basically the upgrade to Win2K?

That is what Microsoft would like us to believe.

But as you know from my posts, we still prefer NT4 web server and not the W2000 server.

W2000 Workstation is OK.

XP has so many flaws that none from our IT guys want to have something with that.

[Kurt Knippel]

So even XP Pro sucks huh? Man they had a good kernel with the NT4 and could have just made that the basis for all of thier OSs, then the whole Win98, ME and XP series would not be such loads of crap. Ohh, well...that's why I went Mac.

[Anatoli]

I will not say the XP sucks, but it is not the same league like NT/W2000.

Actually my 10 years old son loves it for games