Network Types (AREV Specific)
At 07 SEP 1999 05:25:54AM Sedick Cloete wrote:
We have a Windows/95 network with 5 users running pier to pier. What network type must I install for my Arev application, that will accommodate locking?
Urgent.
Thanks
At 07 SEP 1999 06:24AM Steve Smith wrote:
In this configuration one PC (with AREV on it) must act as the defacto server and other as the workstations. Locking has to target one server on a networked (eg shared) drive - the user on the "server" cannot get access to AREV with locking intact.
The DOS 3.1 byte-range driver should suffice in this context.
Steve
At 07 SEP 1999 09:58AM Don Bakke wrote:
Steve,
Shouldn't the All Networks Driver (NPP) be used instead of the normal Byte-range driver since this is running on Win9x?
At 07 SEP 1999 03:00PM Steve Smith wrote:
Don,
You're right, but I have never used that driver with AREV 3.12. What sort of locking does the All Networks Driver employ when it senses Win 95? I'd be surprised if it wasn't byte-range locking…
Steve
At 07 SEP 1999 03:04PM Don Bakke wrote:
Steve,
It does do byte-range locking, that's what that driver is designed to do unless it detects the NT Service also running. Unfortunately it is slower than the DOS 3.1+ byte-range driver but it does avoid the problems inherent with the 32-bit Microsoft systems.
At 07 SEP 1999 03:06PM Steve Smith wrote:
I take your point, Don. The overhead is probably due to flush calls being forced for LKs and OVs simultaneously upon writes. I have had success with the byte range under Win 95 for small peer-peer setups (<6 users).
Steve
At 08 SEP 1999 08:57AM Jim Jones wrote:
Are you saying that if I want to have a 3 user system using an AREV 3.12 application under Windows 95/98 peer to peer network, I'll need 4 computers because the 'server' cannot be used as a workstation to run my AREV 3.12 application?
Thanks,
J.J.
At 10 SEP 1999 05:37AM Steve Smith wrote:
That's right, unless you
(a) run a special TSR to fool AREV into thinking that the local drive on the server is a network drive, and thus its files are lockable
(b) write your own locking protocol
© have such a low-transaction system (or a read-only fairly static system) in which case you can risk a few GFEs
Steve