[AccessD] Connections and Performance

Dan Waters dwaters at usinternet.com
Mon Feb 5 06:46:22 CST 2007


Hi Erwin,

I think they use McAfee as well!  Could you post your solution later on?

Thanks!

Dan Waters


-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Connections and Performance

Did you checked that the virusscanner don't scan mdb?

Ik had a bizare problem with a McAfee virusscanner that when eacht time
saving a record it pauzed for 2 to 10 seconds. When turning the scanner
off it was instant.
The client now doesnt use a virusscanner temproraraly, until I get there
to find the issue.

Erwin


 

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Connections and Performance

Dan,
how about using temporary tables for adding new records and for
reporting?
Ervin

----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Connections and Performance


> Drew,
>
> I read this somewhere - either in MS documentation or in a book where
I
> believe the author.
>
> Here's the reason I was asking:
>
> At a certain customer site, they experienced a dramatic performance 
> slowdown
> at a time when about 10 people were logged on concurrently.  Each
client 
> PC
> has it's own FE.  I know that they open the system and leave the
process
> screens open, all of which are bound.  I want to suggest that they 
> remember
> to close the process screens so that just the main screen is open,
which 
> is
> not bound.  This way a fewer number of connections are being used at
any 
> one
> time and performance would probably be acceptable.  This particular
> customer, I believe, does not have a very good network, so that is
part of
> the problem.  But that's unlikely to get improved, so I wanted to
provide 
> at
> least a partial solution, hence my question.
>
> I've also heard that a connection is made not based on whether a form
is
> open and bound, but on whether or not there is data traffic between to
and
> from a table, which only takes a small part of a second.
>
> So what causes the performance slowdown when only 10 client PC's are 
> logged
> on, and what could be done to improve this?
>
> Dan Waters
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Drew Wutka
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:26 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Connections and Performance
>
> Where are you getting these numbers.  Access can have up to 255 
> connections.
>
> Drew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Waters [mailto:dwaters at usinternet.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:45 AM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Connections and Performance
>
> Access has the potential for 8 simultaneous connections, but 3 of them
are
> reserved for the system's use.  That leaves five for users.
>
> Dan Waters
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of JWColby
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:02 AM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Connections and Performance
>
>>But, the connection limit for one BE is 5 FE's.
>
> What does this mean?  I have never heard of any such thing.
>
>
> John W. Colby
> Colby Consulting
> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Dan Waters
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:58 AM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: [AccessD] Connections and Performance
>
> I've read several times that maintaining a connection between a FE and
a 
> BE
> will increase the performance of the FE because it doesn't need to 
> reconnect
> before transferring data.  The connection here would be a bound form
> connected by a table link to a table in the BE.
>
> But, the connection limit for one BE is 5 FE's.  So, will maintaining
> connections on more than 5 FE's reduce performance?  Seems logical,
but I
> was wondering if this is correct or is there more to it?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dan Waters
>
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> -- 
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> -- 
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> -- 
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> -- 
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date:
2/1/2007 
> 2:28 PM
>
> 

-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com




More information about the AccessD mailing list