steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (04/10/89)
We are seriously considering moving a medium-sized database (about 10 tables, maximum 6,000 records) from McMax to Foxbase's networked version. The decision is prompted partly by prodding from other usenet posters and partly by Nantucket's lackluster performance at producing bugfree software and responding to problems. I'd appreciate receiving Email on any potential problems we may run into, especially in running the networked Foxbase across our rather slow TOPS network. We are also considering connecting our network to a VAX server, which might improve performance. I'd also be interested in hearing about reasonable alternatives, considering that I have more than a hundred dBASEIII+ programs servicing the database. Steve Goldfield
xdaa374@ut-emx.UUCP (William T. Douglass) (04/12/89)
In article <22863@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: >We are seriously considering moving a medium-sized >database (about 10 tables, maximum 6,000 records) >from McMax to Foxbase's networked version. The decision >is prompted partly by prodding from other usenet posters >and partly by Nantucket's lackluster performance at >producing bugfree software and responding to problems. > >I'd appreciate receiving Email on any potential problems >we may run into, especially in running the networked >Foxbase across our rather slow TOPS network. We are also >considering connecting our network to a VAX server, which >might improve performance. I'd also be interested in >hearing about reasonable alternatives, considering that >I have more than a hundred dBASEIII+ programs servicing >the database. First of all, I have found that regular LocalTalk (or PhoneNet, as we use) is too slow for most of our needs. It works fine with the network version of FileMaker II, but the more complicated FoxBase applications we have developed for our agency need better speed. In steps EtherTalk. I have found that, in general (always a disclaimer here) we can get speeds from a Mac II running AppleShare serviceing another Mac II that equal the performance of an SE running off its local hard drive. This is especially true with FoxBase, which does a lot of I/O in its multi-user configuration. (A combination of record-locking overhead & bad handling of indexes in multi-user mode.) My recommendation: Ethernet your users if the speed is critical. Also, I find FoxBase to be a fairly good development environment for the Mac (I have not used McMax - a recent MacWeek article did a comparison of the two, I believe.) The debugging & tracing capabilities, combined with the screen real estate of a Mac II, make for a good productivity tool. If you'ld like more details about what we're doing, e-mail me. Bill... -- Bill Douglass, TCADA "I dreamed I was to take a test, in a Dairy Queen, on another planet." L. Anderson
steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (04/12/89)
I apologize for posting this, but I'm having a lot of trouble
sending mail.
In article <11943@ut-emx.UUCP> xdaa374@emx.UUCP (Bill Douglass) writes:
#>First of all, I have found that regular LocalTalk (or PhoneNet, as we
#>use) is too slow for most of our needs. It works fine with the network
#>version of FileMaker II, but the more complicated FoxBase applications
#>we have developed for our agency need better speed. In steps EtherTalk.
#>I have found that, in general (always a disclaimer here) we can get speeds
#>from a Mac II running AppleShare serviceing another Mac II that equal the
#>performance of an SE running off its local hard drive. This is especially
#>true with FoxBase, which does a lot of I/O in its multi-user configuration.
#>(A combination of record-locking overhead & bad handling of indexes in
#>multi-user mode.) My recommendation: Ethernet your users if the speed is
#>critical.
#>
#>Also, I find FoxBase to be a fairly good development environment for the
#>Mac (I have not used McMax - a recent MacWeek article did a comparison of
#>the two, I believe.) The debugging & tracing capabilities, combined with
#>the screen real estate of a Mac II, make for a good productivity tool.
#>
#>If you'ld like more details about what we're doing, e-mail me.
#>
#>Bill...
#>--
#>Bill Douglass, TCADA
Bill,
Thanks for your response. What network software do you use with
your Ethernet connections? I've heard that Novell is due to
have a Mac version. Also, I presume that you have to install
boards to run Ethernet with Macs. That sounds expensive and
could be a problem with the two pluses in our network.
One thing we are considering is to connect our network to
a campus VAX 8850 which is offering essentially free use
as a file server. I'm not sure how that would affect the
speed if the Foxbase files reside in the VAX system.
Steve Goldfieldalexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (04/14/89)
In article <22863@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: >We are seriously considering moving a medium-sized >database (about 10 tables, maximum 6,000 records) >from McMax to Foxbase's networked version. [...] >I'd appreciate receiving Email on any potential problems >we may run into, especially in running the networked >Foxbase across our rather slow TOPS network. We are also >considering connecting our network to a VAX server, which >might improve performance. I'd also be interested in >hearing about reasonable alternatives, considering that >I have more than a hundred dBASEIII+ programs servicing >the database. Well. Two very important points. The good news is that you'll probably be able to convert 10 Megabytes of source in one day. (I know two people who have had that pleasure). Most of the work involves opening a source file, using the search command, seeing that nothing needs to be changed, and going on to the next file... The BAD NEWS: FoxBase+/Mac WILL NOT RUN MULTIUSER UNDER TOPS! This is NOT Fox's fault. No Multiuser DBMS can run under TOPS with record locking (despite the fact that Acius thinks that 4D can) because TOPS does not conform to the AFP protocals, which are needed for byte-range locking. The solution: use ANY other file server. In particular, the Vax will do the trick quite nicely. It will also give better performance, most likely. A note about performance: for files that Foxbase opens read/write in shared (not EXCLUSIVE) mode, expect a 50% slowdown. Obviously, it can't cache indices. (This effect will be seen with any good program, not just FB+). Other than this, there really are no gotchas- not that I've discovered in over a year of developement. Oh, one more thing- You don't need to run multiuser to run FB on a net, if only one person at a time is using any particular data file. In this case, TOPS is fine. Followups to c.s.mac. --- Alexis Rosen alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet}
alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (04/16/89)
[Steve Goldfield worries about switching to EtherTalk as it could be expensive
for his pluses.]
Not to worry. There are two different cheap SCSI based EtherTalk devices
(anmd one expensive one). Adaptec sells the "Nodem" for about $500. And there
is a similar product from Dove, I think. There is a new one coming from yet
another new entrant to the market.
Also, Kinetics still sells the EtherSC, but last I looked it was about $1250.
Priced right out of the market.
Followups to comp.sys.mac.
---
Alexis Rosen
alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet}
alexis@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (last resort)ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (04/26/89)
The SCSI based Ethernet adaptors are OK for a Mac plus ( since you have no other choice ), but on an SE or a II you do better with a card. A Dove FastNet III card costs less than a Dove or Kinetics SCSI Ethernet box, and I think it is about the same as a Nodem. If you want to use your SE expansion slot for an accelerator rather than a network card, Dove has a card that has an acceletator and an ethernet interface. The main problem is SCSI overhead. The SCSI Manager is slow ( actually, the 5380 is kinda slow, too ). It takes 2 or 3 milliseconds to do a SCSI command. Consider sending a small packet ( AppleTalk has many small packets ). LocalTalk can send a small packet in less than a millisecond. A SCSI ethernet adaptor would still be busy getting the command to the SCSI box! So, for speed, SCSI ethernet does not really win over LocalTalk. On the other hand, if you've got a lot of users, SCSI ethernet will probably win over LocalTalk, so it still may be worthwhile. Tim Smith Disclaimer: I am not an impartial observer, since the company I work for wrote most of Dove's FastNet software.