Author Topic: New systems/old software - funky performance issues - any clues? (Read 417 times)

BB Gun · « **on:** January 01, 2004, 04:38:22 PM »

OK - 3 machines -

1) OOOLD K6-3 500MHz, Win98, 64 MB RAM - HP Pavilion, Realtek RTL8029 NIC
2) 1 month old Asus P4P800-VM, Cel 2.6, 512 MB RAM, using D-link DE-528CT NIC, WinXP Pro Enterprise Edition
3) 3 month old Asus P4P800-VM, Cel 2.4, 512 MB RAM, using onboard NIC, WinXP Pro Enterprise Edition

All machines are on the same network.

There is a DOS database program they all use for school family data management. The ancient K6-2 machine connects in about 10 seconds to this program. Machine 2 takes about 30 seconds to connect to the program, and machine three takes about a full minute to connect to the program. The program is located on a server in another building (the school).

All three machines are on the same floor, same network in the Parish office. They all connect through Thinnet cabling, though machine 2 has a hub that connects to the thinnet, then standard cat-5 to the PC.

I cannot figure out what the variables are that cause the problematic performance. I've tried varying the DOS program settings on the slowest system to no avail.

All other networked programs run fine. Internet access through the gateway/DSL connection is fine.

There is another database program ( http://www.parishdatainc.com/pay/pay_home.htm - I think its based on borland database engine, though I'm not positive) that has performance issues (database run locally on machine 3 but also accessed by machine 1) but I am pretty sure its because they require you to disable disk cacheing ( Opportunistic Locking - http://www.parishdatainc.com/pdf_file/installationchecklist.pdf ) on Win2K/WinXP systems in order to allow network access to the program.

The performance of ledger and the DOS database is actually worse on the Cel 2.4/2.6 machines than it was on the old machines (one was Cel 533/64MB Win98 and the other was an HP Brio PentiumIII with win98 and 128 MB RAM.

Just hoping anyone here can come up with some clues as to why that might be.

Thanks,

BB

BB Gun · « **Reply #1 on:** January 01, 2004, 05:10:54 PM »

Welp - is there a difference in the way WinXP and Win98 handles slow connections? Downloaded SiSoft Sandra to do some benchmark testing, and the connection to the school for some reason on all three computers tests out at an ungodly slow 2 KB/Sec. The local PCs all connect to eachother through the thinnet at just under 1 MBps, so I'm pretty sure its not the local network. Unfortunately, I don't have a network topology diagram for more info. That's handled by another volunteer at the school.

I'll see if I can't get more info on it for y'all soon.

BB

bloom25 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 01, 2004, 08:24:56 PM »

Are you running the program under true DOS, or under the DOS emulator in Windows XP? If it's true DOS, this doesn't surprise me at all. The problem is probably DOS and the software itself. The software probably makes use of timing delays implemented by trying to calculate the clockspeed of the processor by calculating how fast a certain sequence of instructions is processed. The software (and DOS) was never designed for a CPU with that high of a clockspeed, and probably defaults to a very conservative setting. (You'll probably find that the parallel port doesn't work in some DOS programs either. The reason is the same, software timing delay calculations commonly used in DOS applications often cannot deal with a CPU with such a high clockspeed.)

It's also worth mentioning that even a 2.6 GHz Celeron can hardly match even a 1.6 GHz Northwood P4. Anandtech published a recent review detailing just how bad the Celerons are in relation to the rest of the budget offerings. If the HP machine was a 1 GHz P3, I would actually expect it to perform similarly to a 2.4 GHz Celeron in a database application. (Database software is a weakness of the P4 design.)

BB Gun · « **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2004, 05:52:26 AM »

Thanks bloom. Its running in a DOS window, all properties for the command shell are at default, everything auto.

Yeah, I know Celerons are weak in DB apps, but we're talking click on a menu item - even if its just to open a query form - and wait 3-7 seconds for the thing to come up.

I don't think performance THAT poor is related to the nearly cacheless celerons. But... who knows.... Maybe I'll grab a P4 and see if its any different.

*shrug*

BB

bloom25 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 02, 2004, 12:23:00 PM »

No, it's not that big of a deal. The problem is most likely still the program itself.

bloom25 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 02, 2004, 12:27:58 PM »

I just did a google search for "dos program runs slow under xp". There's a ton of people having the same issues. Most are saying running a dos program under XP makes it run about 1/3 as fast as it should.

I'll bet running the program from a Windows 98 Dos window takes care of the problem...

BB Gun · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2004, 05:31:28 PM »

Thanks bloom - win98 DOS window though? Does that mean running it in "Win98 compatibility mode" in the properties checkbox for the program? Or do I start-run-"command" for a win98 window, then start the program? Hunting the net as we speak.

Thanks again,

BB

bloom25 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 06, 2004, 04:55:27 PM »

No, I mean run the program under Windows 98.