Page 4 of 5
Posted: 10 Aug 2007 10:26
by serendipity
admin wrote:lukescammell wrote:Sorry, I've only got 71 and 77 and it was broken in 77. The symptoms are a grey list saying "can't access it". Switching the XY files back to 71 fixes it. No errors, popups or anything.
Hm. Why only you? Did you try the ExistUNC.zip test app I uploaded some days ago? Did it work? What locations do not work (servers, shares, folders on shares?)? How do you navigate to them? Catalog, Tree, Address bar?
No problems here, as I said before it has only gotten better. Browsing network from address bar, catalog and tree is fast and smooth now. I wonder what is so different is Luke's setup, or in UK.
Posted: 11 Aug 2007 19:35
by lukescammell
Bleah - it's just windows sodding networking. I've just started kicking around with Linux and while still a lot harder to initially setup than windows (I don't mean install, I mean setup to do all the stuff you want) once you've done it correctly, that is it. From then on it just works and works well and fast - especially on the networking front which is really good.
I wonder if it has anything to do with running on Vista at work? Server is SBS 2003.
Posted: 15 Aug 2007 17:07
by lukescammell
I finally had a spare moment to run that UNC program, here are the results:
Code: Select all
Path: \\OFFICESERVER\Design\publications\
- Check 1: True. Time needed: 101.957 msec = 0.10 seconds
- Check 2: True. Time needed: 1.709 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 3: True. Time needed: 4.382 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 4: False. Time needed: 0.446 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 5: False. Time needed: 0.008 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 6: True. Time needed: 4.531 msec = 0.00 seconds
Path: \\OFFICESERVER\
- Check 1: True. Time needed: 2.704 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 2: False. Time needed: 0.102 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 3: True. Time needed: 3.719 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 4: False. Time needed: 0.016 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 5: False. Time needed: 0.008 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 6: True. Time needed: 4.036 msec = 0.00 seconds
6.10.0071 - works just fine thanks
6.10.0092 - nadda :/
Posted: 15 Aug 2007 17:26
by admin
lukescammell wrote:I finally had a spare moment to run that UNC program, here are the results:
Code: Select all
Path: \\OFFICESERVER\Design\publications\
- Check 1: True. Time needed: 101.957 msec = 0.10 seconds
- Check 2: True. Time needed: 1.709 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 3: True. Time needed: 4.382 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 4: False. Time needed: 0.446 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 5: False. Time needed: 0.008 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 6: True. Time needed: 4.531 msec = 0.00 seconds
Path: \\OFFICESERVER\
- Check 1: True. Time needed: 2.704 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 2: False. Time needed: 0.102 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 3: True. Time needed: 3.719 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 4: False. Time needed: 0.016 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 5: False. Time needed: 0.008 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 6: True. Time needed: 4.036 msec = 0.00 seconds
6.10.0071 - works just fine thanks
6.10.0092 - nadda :/
Aha. So I was on the right track: Check 5 does not work under your system. That's BAD!
The good part is: it's ONLY YOUR system!
But wait -- I can't stand seeing Luke unhappy! So let's first see which Check works for you. I cannot tell from the above data because I don't know for sure which is the right answer (true or false). Please play around and check all (or at least enough) possibilities: test an existing and an non-existing server and an existing and an non-existing path on an existing server and let me know which Check(s) do(es) everything right. Then we take the fastest.
I'm just wondering about the name of the option? A checkbox labeled "I'm Luke Scammell" ?
Posted: 15 Aug 2007 23:47
by lukescammell
Har dee har, very funny
It's probably only me because there are probably few others running Vista Business on a Windows SBS 2003 domain in this forum
I'll run a test on a non-existant server tomorrow and paste those results in as well.
Posted: 16 Aug 2007 11:42
by lukescammell
Hope this is helpful. I restarted the app in between results.
Code: Select all
Path: \\servername\
- Check 1: False. Time needed: 11,994.118 msec = 11.99 seconds
- Check 2: False. Time needed: 0.122 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 3: False. Time needed: 0.574 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 4: False. Time needed: 0.419 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 5: False. Time needed: 0.008 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 6: False. Time needed: 0.896 msec = 0.00 seconds
Path: \\servername\sharename\path
- Check 1: False. Time needed: 27.165 msec = 0.03 seconds
- Check 2: False. Time needed: 9,366.874 msec = 9.37 seconds
- Check 3: False. Time needed: 1.233 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 4: False. Time needed: 0.379 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 5: False. Time needed: 0.008 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 6: False. Time needed: 0.988 msec = 0.00 seconds
Posted: 16 Aug 2007 14:26
by admin
lukescammell wrote:
Code: Select all
Path: \\OFFICESERVER\Design\publications\
- Check 1: True. Time needed: 101.957 msec = 0.10 seconds
- Check 2: True. Time needed: 1.709 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 3: True. Time needed: 4.382 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 4: False. Time needed: 0.446 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 5: False. Time needed: 0.008 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 6: True. Time needed: 4.531 msec = 0.00 seconds
Path: \\OFFICESERVER\
- Check 1: True. Time needed: 2.704 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 2: False. Time needed: 0.102 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 3: True. Time needed: 3.719 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 4: False. Time needed: 0.016 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 5: False. Time needed: 0.008 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 6: True. Time needed: 4.036 msec = 0.00 seconds
Path: \\servername\
- Check 1: False. Time needed: 11,994.118 msec = 11.99 seconds
- Check 2: False. Time needed: 0.122 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 3: False. Time needed: 0.574 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 4: False. Time needed: 0.419 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 5: False. Time needed: 0.008 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 6: False. Time needed: 0.896 msec = 0.00 seconds
Path: \\servername\sharename\path
- Check 1: False. Time needed: 27.165 msec = 0.03 seconds
- Check 2: False. Time needed: 9,366.874 msec = 9.37 seconds
- Check 3: False. Time needed: 1.233 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 4: False. Time needed: 0.379 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 5: False. Time needed: 0.008 msec = 0.00 seconds
- Check 6: False. Time needed: 0.988 msec = 0.00 seconds
Thanks. So 1, 3 and 6 work correctly under your system. XYplorer currently uses 2 and 5, so no wonder it does not work at your end.
3 seems to by the fastest with 6 following closely. But both 3 and 6 can only determine whether a server exists. They do not say anything about the full path. So in your case, since 2 does not work, I need 1 to check if a full UNC path exists. And this is exactly the slow one!
Code: Select all
Path: \\OFFICESERVER\Design\publications\
- Check 1: True. Time needed: 101.957 msec = 0.10 seconds
OTOH, 0.1 seconds is not that slow, is it?
So in your case a combo of 3 + 1 inplace of the currently used 5 + 2 would work.
Remains the question: what is it that makes your system special??? Can I detect this programmatically, or, if not: how should I label a manual switch?
BTW, are you using VPN?
Posted: 16 Aug 2007 21:00
by lukescammell
Not VPN - this is on a gigabit LAN. I imagine it has something to do with the way SBS is setup and perhaps some kind of strange interaction between Vista and 2003.
I'll see if I can run those test on a collegue's XP machine opposite me. Would be interesting to see if that gives the same result or something different.
0.1 seconds isn't exactly a lot though, especially if it ends up being more reliable
Posted: 18 Aug 2007 12:23
by admin
lukescammell wrote:Not VPN - this is on a gigabit LAN. I imagine it has something to do with the way SBS is setup and perhaps some kind of strange interaction between Vista and 2003.
I'll see if I can run those test on a collegue's XP machine opposite me. Would be interesting to see if that gives the same result or something different.
Good, looking forward to the results...
Note, that Check 3, which works for you did
not work for others (see page 2 of this thread). So it is very important to find out the exact conditions / properties of your system...
Posted: 18 Aug 2007 15:02
by lukescammell
As I'm leaving the company shortly (new job!) I doubt I'll be able to do any snooping around on the exact network setup. I've told you everything I know already, so perhaps someone else here can run a test on a Windows 2003 SBS network and see if they get similar results?
I'll run the test on XP Pro SP2 and Vista Business 64bit on Monday (if I remember).
Posted: 18 Aug 2007 18:38
by admin
lukescammell wrote:As I'm leaving the company shortly...
So maybe you are leaving the problem, too!
Anyway, I think I should introduce the two-bugs rule (analog to the two-fools rule for wishes): only care for bugs that at least 2 people report.
Seriously, right now the information I have is not enough to enable me to change the code in a responsible way.
Posted: 23 Aug 2007 10:36
by lukescammell
That's a complete bugger for the rest of the month here though :/ It's a real shame, I've kind of got used to using betas - I feel like I'm falling behind in testing new things out for you!
I'll see if I can get on an XP machine today and get some results to you.
Also, is it normal for XY to take nearly 2 minutes to load up on my home machine using my work .ini? Once it's loaded, I can then reload using my home.ini file which takes approx 2 seconds.
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 12:01
by admin
lukescammell wrote:I wonder if it has anything to do with running on Vista at work? Server is SBS 2003.
Hehe, good guess! I found out today that I was using a call that is not probably supported in Vista. I say "probably" because info on that is unclear -- but your case seems to prove it! Plus, another Vista guy came up with the same problem today, so the 2-bug-reports-rule sets in!
So I tried something else today. It *might* be a little bit slower (a couple of milliseconds!) for the Non-Vista world (but for me on XP it's actually even faster!), don't know. But it *should* work for everybody.
What I did: instead of checks 5 + 2, I'm using 6 + 2.
Posted: 28 Aug 2007 12:42
by admin
admin wrote:What I did: instead of checks 5 + 2, I'm using 6 + 2.
Hello? I'd like some confirmation, because this is a (small but)
heavy change.
- Does it still work with users where it worked before?
- Is it still fast?
- Does it work now where it did not work before (i.e. under Vista)?
Thanks!
Posted: 28 Aug 2007 13:24
by serendipity
The network here works as good as it was before. thanks.