Link List and Record Locking (AREV Specific)
At 09 JAN 2001 09:09:30AM C Mansutti wrote:
I have a site which has been working happily for years.
Novell 3.2 - 10 users
Some DOS and Windows Workstations
NLM Ver 1.12
No dedicated indexer
They had a sudden power cut before Christmas and their indexes got quite upset. We got them back up and they worked fine until last week.
There is a table with 250,000 records and 10 Btree indexes which keeps getting Link-List breaks after an hour or two of the indexes being totally re-built. Now another index table has also gone Link-List.
Looking at the various info on this forum we may have found the cause. Two PCs running Windows '95 totally ignore network record locks.
How do we get these PCs to start record locking. I've tried a number of things including 'Disable write behind caching' in Windows but to no avial.
Any help/suggestions greatfully recieved
Regards
Claude
At 09 JAN 2001 10:46AM Don Miller - C3 Inc. wrote:
Claude ..
What client are you using for Win95 (Netware Client32, I hope)? In the System, Performance, File System, Troubleshooting tab, is Write-Behind Caching disabled (Checked)? If not, then you're bound to have trouble.
As for Locking .. If you open a VOC record with the editor on one of those workstations, and then try the same on on another, do you get the Record Locked by Another Workstation message? If not, then there's something wrong with the client desktop access to the server. I wouldn't lock anything anywhere if this is the case.
Can you run the NLM_STATS program from these desktops to see what's happening?
Don Miller
C3 Inc.
At 09 JAN 2001 12:33PM Larry Wilson wrote:
Probably the largest single cause, after what Don has mentioned, is that the PCs use a different drive letter and/or path in the shortcut to the AREV directory. All machines need to use the same drive letter and the same full path to AREV.EXE.
Larry Wilson
At 10 JAN 2001 09:21AM C Mansutti wrote:
Did you know that there is no easy way for the end user to realise that the NLM is not running.
When they restarted the server it asked a question prior to running lhstart, so it was never run.
The LHIPXTSR loads fine - no warning that the NLM wasn't loaded.
running nlm_stats gave me the answer, hitting the key at the server console solved the problem &#&%~!
Thanks for the help fellas, its all sorted now.
Claude
At 10 JAN 2001 10:00AM John Henry wrote:
Claude,
FWIW, I have the following code on the create event for the application startup window to detect NLM control:
OPEN 'SYSTABLES' TO TableIn ELSE RETURN
READ SysTableRec FROM TableIn,'SYSOBJ' ELSE RETURN
IF NOT(INDEX(SysTableRec,'FFFFFF',1)) THEN
MsgTxt=The SYSOBJ table is NOT under the NLM's control."MsgTxt := "Please contact your System Administrator."MsgTxt=H"MsgTxt=NLM Error"CALL Msg('',Msgtxt)END
John Henry
At 11 JAN 2001 04:12AM C Mansutti wrote:
Thanks John,
Code taken and implemented
Claude
At 11 JAN 2001 02:32PM Heidi Korell wrote:
Don, I have a question regarding your response to this problem…
What client are you using for Win95 (Netware Client32, I hope)? In the System, Performance, File System, Troubleshooting tab, is Write-Behind Caching disabled (Checked)? If not, then you're bound to have trouble.
What kinds of problems would we be seeing if this option was not checked? None of our workstations have this option checked, and I'm interested in hearing what would potentially happen in this case.
Thanks,
Heidi Korell
At 15 JAN 2001 02:48PM C Mansutti wrote:
You'd think after lashing out over £1,000 for the NLM that RevTech could build in the 10 lines of code to warn you if the NLM is not properly loaded!!!
Gruuummmppphhh!!!!
At 15 JAN 2001 05:48PM Mike Ruane wrote:
Claude-
As I recall the program was provided in the documentation.
Mike Ruane
At 15 JAN 2001 06:29PM [url=http://www.sprezzatura.com]The Sprezzatura Group[/url] wrote:
Claude,
The ServerOnly parameter in the REVPARAM file also accomplishes this.
World Leaders in all things RevSoft
At 16 JAN 2001 07:39AM C Mansutti wrote:
For what reason would you want to switch a warning like that off?
It should be a built in safeguard just like the old DOS Netware Lite warning when you logged in via the C Drive! A simple warning as you logged on, is it too much to ask?
Sorry I can't accept the "You should have read the Documentation" argument. (even though I'm sure I did, but that was about 4 years ago)
Regards
Claude
At 17 JAN 2001 02:44PM Donald Bakke wrote:
Claude,
For what reason would you want to switch a warning like that off?
One reason would be so you could still access the system even if the network was not operating properly. There have been a few times where we've discovered that the network was not recoverable but we absolutely needed to get to the data. Turning the ServerOnly parameter off allows this. The old netware solution still allowed people in the system, but indiscriminately. This is not necessarily a good thing because users don't care what warning messages they are getting. They still try to push their way through at any cost. The ServerOnly flag allows control over this kind of circumstance.
