Hi Everyone.

Is anyone else having major problems with performance? Ver 1.9 is
lightning fast and Ver 2.0 seems to run at about 60-90 % the speed of
Ver 1.9 overall. We use SAP's Advantage  Database server.

As a test we have 2 Identical Computers, these are hardware systems
not VMs. Both 16 Gigs of Ram, 2 TB of DS and fully patched Windows 8.1
Pro. Both are 27" Touch screens.

Both are connected to the same ADS Server (Dell PowerEdge Server),
both running the exact same application, one is compiled with Ver 2.0
latest patch from Alaska (11/06/2014) the other is running the last
patch for Ver 1.9. ADS server is latest release 11.10.0.20 with fully
matching Ace32 runtime wrappers. Running on a 1 GB Local Network.

Overall there is no comparison Ver 1.9 is smoother and Faster. Any
time a filtered xbpbrowse is used in Ver 2.0, it just slows right down
on the simplest jobs.

In contrast the xbpQuickbrowse performs very well in Ver 2.0. 

It would appear that Ver 2.0's performance is not up to par with Ver
1.9  at this time for our application and we would definitely not
contemplate releasing into our production environments yet.

I would appreciate anyone else's feedback.

Till, you did ask us to post our findings here and that is what I am
doing. In no way am I attempting to be negative, far from it. I for
one very much appreciate all that Alaska-Software does and I am very
gratefull to all the pople on your team.

Regards

Chris Chambers
Kelowna BC

Hi Chris,

Thank you very much for reporting your observation.

> Till, you did ask us to post our findings here and that is what I am
> doing. In no way am I attempting to be negative, far from it. I for
> one very much appreciate all that Alaska-Software does and I am very
> gratefull to all the pople on your team.

We have no problem with that. However, your inquiry is not very
specific and therefore not very helpful. What we need is a usecase that
allows us to qualify your observation.

Isolate that portion(s) of your code that introduces the speed penalti(es).
Create a/some self contained sample(s) and send the result.

Thank you very much in advance.

With my best regards,

  Andreas Herdt
  Alaska Software

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Support:      support@alaska-software.com

News Server:            news.alaska-software.com
Homepage:               http://www.alaska-software.com
WebKnowledgeBase:       http://www.alaska-software.com/kbase.shtm

Fax European Office:    +49 (0) 61 96 - 77 99 99 23
Fax US Office:          +1 (646) 218 1281
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Chris Chambers" wrote in message 
news:qjb36a5hpo77fe1e90cov9nlfa1l7fl9fk@4ax.com...
>
> Hi Everyone.
>
> Is anyone else having major problems with performance? Ver 1.9 is
> lightning fast and Ver 2.0 seems to run at about 60-90 % the speed of
> Ver 1.9 overall. We use SAP's Advantage  Database server.
>
> As a test we have 2 Identical Computers, these are hardware systems
> not VMs. Both 16 Gigs of Ram, 2 TB of DS and fully patched Windows 8.1
> Pro. Both are 27" Touch screens.
>
> Both are connected to the same ADS Server (Dell PowerEdge Server),
> both running the exact same application, one is compiled with Ver 2.0
> latest patch from Alaska (11/06/2014) the other is running the last
> patch for Ver 1.9. ADS server is latest release 11.10.0.20 with fully
> matching Ace32 runtime wrappers. Running on a 1 GB Local Network.
>
> Overall there is no comparison Ver 1.9 is smoother and Faster. Any
> time a filtered xbpbrowse is used in Ver 2.0, it just slows right down
> on the simplest jobs.
>
> In contrast the xbpQuickbrowse performs very well in Ver 2.0.
>
> It would appear that Ver 2.0's performance is not up to par with Ver
> 1.9  at this time for our application and we would definitely not
> contemplate releasing into our production environments yet.
>
> I would appreciate anyone else's feedback.
>
> Till, you did ask us to post our findings here and that is what I am
> doing. In no way am I attempting to be negative, far from it. I for
> one very much appreciate all that Alaska-Software does and I am very
> gratefull to all the pople on your team.
>
> Regards
>
> Chris Chambers
> Kelowna BC
>
>
>
>

Hi Andreas,

Unfortunately is not just one thing. Since we last corresponded we
have also tried a Ver 2.0 runtime at our data center, where we have
very fast machines. True these are virtual servers running Windows
2008 R2 Fully patched. Ver 1.9 still continues to outperform v 2.0 in
almost every way. 
I would need to sit down with you to show you. Our application is
quite extensive and is running in Ver 1.9 with no speed performance
issues at all.
Our system is running small to medium size businesses here in Canada.
They range from Yamaha and Kubota dealerships to Medical equipment,
including servicing the oil patch service companies.  We also have
other small industries in between.
Sorry, if that sounds somewhat grandiose, we are in fact a small
company and we do not have that many clients, but enough to make it
comfortable. 
We offer our system as a service not as a purchasable asset. We also
host most of our clients.
We address a niche market and that would be the best way to describe
us.
I say all of this to say, my clientele has a low tolerance for poor
performance issues and I know without a doubt that I would be in
trouble if tried to use Ver 2.0 at this time.
My apologies, as I know you want a single code snippet to test with,
this would not even be enough.
Perhaps we can think of another way to approach this, for your
perusal. 
Thank you again for all your help.
Regards
Chris







On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:44:49 +0100, Andreas Herdt wrote:

>Hi Chris,
>
>Thank you very much for reporting your observation.
>
>> Till, you did ask us to post our findings here and that is what I am
>> doing. In no way am I attempting to be negative, far from it. I for
>> one very much appreciate all that Alaska-Software does and I am very
>> gratefull to all the pople on your team.
>
>We have no problem with that. However, your inquiry is not very
>specific and therefore not very helpful. What we need is a usecase that
>allows us to qualify your observation.
>
>Isolate that portion(s) of your code that introduces the speed penalti(es).
>Create a/some self contained sample(s) and send the result.
>
>Thank you very much in advance.
>
>With my best regards,

Hi Chris,

> My apologies, as I know you want a single code snippet to test with,
> this would not even be enough.
> Perhaps we can think of another way to approach this, for your
> perusal.

You have mentioned the Browses. Is this a starting point you can
investigate in?

With my best regards,

  Andreas Herdt
  Alaska Software

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Support:      support@alaska-software.com

News Server:            news.alaska-software.com
Homepage:               http://www.alaska-software.com
WebKnowledgeBase:       http://www.alaska-software.com/kbase.shtm

Fax European Office:    +49 (0) 61 96 - 77 99 99 23
Fax US Office:          +1 (646) 218 1281
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Chris Chambers" wrote in message 
news:74546apmlgnmckgcidckc0rveocm09ir6o@4ax.com...
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Unfortunately is not just one thing. Since we last corresponded we
> have also tried a Ver 2.0 runtime at our data center, where we have
> very fast machines. True these are virtual servers running Windows
> 2008 R2 Fully patched. Ver 1.9 still continues to outperform v 2.0 in
> almost every way.
> I would need to sit down with you to show you. Our application is
> quite extensive and is running in Ver 1.9 with no speed performance
> issues at all.
> Our system is running small to medium size businesses here in Canada.
> They range from Yamaha and Kubota dealerships to Medical equipment,
> including servicing the oil patch service companies.  We also have
> other small industries in between.
> Sorry, if that sounds somewhat grandiose, we are in fact a small
> company and we do not have that many clients, but enough to make it
> comfortable.
> We offer our system as a service not as a purchasable asset. We also
> host most of our clients.
> We address a niche market and that would be the best way to describe
> us.
> I say all of this to say, my clientele has a low tolerance for poor
> performance issues and I know without a doubt that I would be in
> trouble if tried to use Ver 2.0 at this time.
> My apologies, as I know you want a single code snippet to test with,
> this would not even be enough.
> Perhaps we can think of another way to approach this, for your
> perusal.
> Thank you again for all your help.
> Regards
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:44:49 +0100, Andreas Herdt wrote:
>
>>Hi Chris,
>>
>>Thank you very much for reporting your observation.
>>
>>> Till, you did ask us to post our findings here and that is what I am
>>> doing. In no way am I attempting to be negative, far from it. I for
>>> one very much appreciate all that Alaska-Software does and I am very
>>> gratefull to all the pople on your team.
>>
>>We have no problem with that. However, your inquiry is not very
>>specific and therefore not very helpful. What we need is a usecase that
>>allows us to qualify your observation.
>>
>>Isolate that portion(s) of your code that introduces the speed 
>>penalti(es).
>>Create a/some self contained sample(s) and send the result.
>>
>>Thank you very much in advance.
>>
>>With my best regards,

Andreas Herdt wrote in message news:693e9469$202f516f$548@news.alaska-
software.com...
>Hi Chris,
>
>> My apologies, as I know you want a single code snippet to test with,
>> this would not even be enough.
>> Perhaps we can think of another way to approach this, for your
>> perusal.
>
>You have mentioned the Browses. Is this a starting point you can
>investigate in?
>
>With my best regards,

Hi, 

We are having similar issues with performance of 2.0 which makes us to 
abandon 2.0 migration.

Overall performance of application is significanty slower. 

The same actions as: 
- Indexing multiple files
- Opening dialogs
- Painitng

Takes noticable longer.

Hallo Mr Ciupinsky,

Are you able to give us a starting point from where we can investigate?
Can you provide us with any sample so that we can see what aspect
of the ADSDBE 2.0 behaves slower compared to 1.9?

If you can not show us we can not fix it 

  Andreas Herdt
  Alaska Software

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Support:      support@alaska-software.com

News Server:            news.alaska-software.com
Homepage:               http://www.alaska-software.com
WebKnowledgeBase:       http://www.alaska-software.com/kbase.shtm

Fax European Office:    +49 (0) 61 96 - 77 99 99 23
Fax US Office:          +1 (646) 218 1281
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"S++awomir Ciupinski" wrote in message 
news:1ecbed6a$1f2dbb54$106dd4@news.alaska-software.com...
> Andreas Herdt wrote in message news:693e9469$202f516f$548@news.alaska-
> software.com...
>>Hi Chris,
>>
>>> My apologies, as I know you want a single code snippet to test with,
>>> this would not even be enough.
>>> Perhaps we can think of another way to approach this, for your
>>> perusal.
>>
>>You have mentioned the Browses. Is this a starting point you can
>>investigate in?
>>
>>With my best regards,
>
> Hi,
>
> We are having similar issues with performance of 2.0 which makes us to
> abandon 2.0 migration.
>
> Overall performance of application is significanty slower.
>
> The same actions as:
> - Indexing multiple files
> - Opening dialogs
> - Painitng
>
> Takes noticable longer.