pictures are sloooooowwww

[danjacoby]

A client has 4 computers on a TCP/IP network, each with FMP.

They scan pix from one of the "guest" computers, but save them to a folder on the "host" computer. Then the links to the pix are created in a container field.

The problem is that the pix take forever to load -- even on the "host" computer. The only computer on which they don't take forever is the one on which the work is done (i.e. the links are created).

:??

[Kurt Knippel]

How big are the pics? How are they saved? Are they just deposited into the container field? What are the specs (especially the video card and such). Are you using Filemaker Server? How many records are in the database?

[danjacoby]

Some specs:

Not using FMP Server -- only 4 computers in the network.

There are about 6,000 records, each with one picture.

Pics are in JPG format, and run 60-110KB. They are saved to a folder first, then linked into the FMP file (using the Import feature, but clicking "store only a reference..."

Also, what may be important -- they're using FMP v4.

Another thing -- they've been doing this for a few years now with no problem. The only apparent difference is that they have a new scanner, but since the pics are saved in the same format (JPG), should that make a difference?

[yomaddog]

Are you sure that this new scanner is NOT saving the pics as a "large-file"? It's very simple to overlook the small things...

[Ugo DI LUCA]

Dan,

I'll bet you already solved this one, ....

Just in case. What's the network like ?

And....What are you doing in the Window section anyway ?

[danjacoby]

OK, problem is not yet solved. I'm in the Windows section because the client is Windows-based (I have suggested moving into the light, but...).

Supposedly it's a standard TCP/IP network, but I'm not familiar with Windows networks, so any suggestions on what to ask the client would be helpful.

[danjacoby]

The pix are small enough (generally 40-60K) to load quickly; I'm at a real loss.

[cjaeger]

new scanner can be the key - has the jpeg format changed somehow? Suppose, you are using "use compatible graphics". This would slow down graphics as well as conversion is done on-the-fly. try allocating more memory to fileMaker, use Norton to make your image storage contiguous and make sure you have enough hard disk space.

Did you change your QuickTime version?

I had a similar problem once. Strangely enough, the problem disappeared after i moved all the images to a separate, linked db which only contained the Pics, picID, picPath. one would assume that getting the pix out of a related db would lead to further slow-down, but it did the opposite. Speed improved by 50% or more.

[cjaeger]

another tip:

if you have access to an apple, try

tell application "FileMaker Pro"

tell database 1

tell current record

set x to cell "picture" as text

print x

end

end

end

this would give you the path to the image.

it is possibly not stored as a local path but as a path to a networked drive ....

What might also work:

it is best to store all your pix in a subfolder of your solution. This way, pic links are not broken when the solution is moved. If you have separate scanning and hosting computers, link to a local file on the scanning computer and copy it over to the same(relative) directory on the host.

or - using a separate image database, consider storing your pix not as ref so the other computers can access the files faster.

[danjacoby]

All the pix are stored in a subfolder inside the solution folder.

No access to Apple on this one, as the client is totally Windows-based.

How do you allocate memory to an app in Windows?

However, the "new scanner" thing might have something to do with the problem. What exactly do you mean by "use compatible graphics"?

[Ugo DI LUCA]

Hi Dan,

The problem is that the pix take forever to load -- even on the "host" computer. The only computer on which they don't take forever is the one on which the work is done (i.e. the links are created).

I don't get why it would work fine on one and not on the others if this was a scanner problem ?

What are the Machine specs BTW ?

Oops... Dan, are you kidding ...Duplicate posts ?? I am kidding

slow network performances

What about Anatoli's suggestions....

[danjacoby]

Regarding "duplicate posts" -- as this thread had stopped (note the three-month gap) and another opened up that was similar to my problem, I jumped in.

Now this thread has become active again, so here we are.

[Ugo DI LUCA]

Hi Dan,

I noticed that !

It may help to know what others did say about the network as I'm also mainly focused on this.

What about the Temp files then ? And Anatoli and Leb I Sol suggestions ?