using an XP box as a 'server' in a two-user app environment? (AREV Specific)
At 15 JUL 2003 12:21:05PM walter bowen wrote:
A client has an office that is going to be moving to XP, and their current setup is 2 clients running AREV off a Novell server. Anyone tried to run AREV 2.12 on an XP Pro box, while it's acting as an AREV 'server' for another XP Pro box? First tests showed no problems, but I'm concerned that without adding the LH services we'll start running into GFE's as the LH activity increases.
TIA!
At 15 JUL 2003 12:35PM [url=http://www.sprezzatura.com" onMouseOver=window.status= Click here to visit our web site?';return(true)]The Sprezzatura Group[/url] wrote:
The Network Performance Pack is officially the only supported network driver in this configuration and this is available as an upgrade for AREV - it is included with OI.
World Leaders in all things RevSoft
At 15 JUL 2003 01:06PM walter bowen wrote:
Sprezz,
Thanks. We've got the NPP for a win2000 server installation, but the doco makes it sound like it's only for 'server'-class machines (win2000 or NT). Does a standalone XP Pro box qualify as that?
At 15 JUL 2003 01:13PM Richard Hunt wrote:
Walter,
If I read your message correctly… You are going to use the "server" as a "workstation", correct???
If so, be sure that locking of rows is working properly between both machines.
At 15 JUL 2003 01:20PM walter bowen wrote:
Yes, they'll be running the AREV system on two XP PRO machines, with one of those acting as the 'server' to the other. I've tried to edit the same record in a file on both machines at the same time, and I get the '… is in use elsewhere and cannot be saved' and 'This data is protected and cannot be edited.' messages as expected upon trying the second edit. Seems like the record locking is working…
At 15 JUL 2003 02:33PM Don Miller - C3 Inc. wrote:
As long as the "server" drive is marked as a share, this should work OK. It used to be the case that NT (which Win2K and XP Pro really are), couldn't map a Local Drive. This caused a problem since AREV wants the user desktop to use the same Mapping (largely due to Indexing). The Index code sometimes will contain a Drive Letter which was a network mapped drive at the time the index was created. This used to cause problems when different workstations used different drive mappings. I'm not sure it's an issue with AREV 3.x with the NPP anymore.
Don M.
At 15 JUL 2003 03:00PM walter bowen wrote:
Good point, Don. I just tried and the network mapping isn't a problem any longer on XP Pro. I was able to map an H:\ drive back to the same pc, and the record locking and index usage still seems ok. I am concerned, however, about the problems brought up on another thread about some mfr's XP boxes not being able to use EMM. I have two different Compaq XP Pro boxes, and one shows expanded memory active while one shows it inactive. The one showing inactive is the one to which I just added the 'EMM=RAM' in the config.nt.
At 16 JUL 2003 08:58AM [url=http://www.sprezzatura.com]The Sprezzatura Group[/url] wrote:
Actually, Don, they can….provided you use a little trick. Hey, we wouldn't be Sprezz if we didn't have a few tricks lying around, would we.
You need to set up a loopback adapter. Go to add hardware, network cards. Provider is Microsoft, card type is loopback. This gives you a software network card. You can then access you own machine through a network, thus giving you shares on your local drive.
Another handy tidbit from your friendly neighborhood Sprezz-man.
World Leaders in all Things RevSoft
At 16 JUL 2003 07:35PM Don Miller wrote:
Sprezz .. well .. when I used to live in Texas, I'd say "That's slicker than deer guts on a doorknob". Now that I'm a Connecticut Yankee Bluegrass banjo picker, I'll say "Bless your hearts and all your vital organs".
Still a neat trick to file away for future reference.
Don M.
At 19 JUL 2003 06:49AM Ray Chan wrote:
'This data is protected and cannot be edited.' messages as expected upon trying the second edit. Seems like the record locking is working…
Based on this thread, I tried to setup a two-user app environment for testing. Locking works, however, if I try to save a record, I get an FS102 error message. This basically says that we are "writing" to a read-only table.
Just curious, but does anyone know why this happens and/or what is needed to make this work.
I have made sure that the folders are shared. Everyone has full-rights, and we are using the same Mapped drive. Oh yes, if you don't use a Mapped drive, writing isn't a problem at least on the PC, that is, acting as the "server." I'm assuming from this thread and reading elsewhere that a Mapped drive is required.
Thanks.
Ray