«

Two Windows boxes with identical COM objects and databases for comparing and
testing purposes (2000 and 2003) exists as virtual mashines on one big host
server. Network settings for
these VMs are identical (except IP address, of course).

We have on remote client request executing time (getting 3000 rows from DB ~
1.4 Mb amount - measured via Network Monitor) about 3 sec on Windows 2000 VM
and 50 (!) sec for 2003 VM. For local request both time are identical and ~
1.5 sec.
Without using RDS both machines have similar responce time for remote client
characteristics, so the root of problem is RDS.
Anybody have such problem? How to configure RDS on Windows 2003 to avoid
such strange behaviour?

Thanks for any suggestions,
Nick

Nikolay wrote:
> Two Windows boxes with identical COM objects and databases for
> comparing and testing purposes (2000 and 2003) exists as virtual
> mashines on one big host server. Network settings for
> these VMs are identical (except IP address, of course).
>
> We have on remote client request executing time (getting 3000 rows
> from DB ~
> 1.4 Mb amount - measured via Network Monitor) about 3 sec on Windows
> 2000 VM and 50 (!) sec for 2003 VM. For local request both time are
> identical and ~
> 1.5 sec.
> Without using RDS both machines have similar responce time for remote
> client characteristics, so the root of problem is RDS.
> Anybody have such problem? How to configure RDS on Windows 2003 to
> avoid such strange behaviour?
>
> Thanks for any suggestions,
> Nick


To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure RDS will work on W2003. I gave up
on that beast (RDS) 5 yrs ago. It did not work well then, and I'm pretty
sure it still does not work well. You may get it working well on your test
machines, but when it comes time to deploy it into production, you will
discover many configuration problems (I'm speaking from experience - I spent
several weeks developing an application using RDS - due to the client and
server configuration issues after deployment, I wound up having to rewrite
that app).

Look into using XMLHTTP instead if you need to do data access in client-side
code.

Bob Barrows


--
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"

Thanks for reply, Bob

Now we have MS Project 2000 server under W2k with a lot of our own code
(using RDS) for expand its functionality and think about migration to MS
Project 2003 on Win2003 platform, so transition to another data transform
technology is a very complicated.

We are not lonely with this trouble. The same problem described in post "RDS
Sloooow in IIS6" from HelpMe (microsoft.public.data.ado.rds newsgroup) from
02.07.2004.

Regards,
Nick



"Bob Barrows" <> wrote in message
news:#...
> Nikolay wrote:
> > Two Windows boxes with identical COM objects and databases for
> > comparing and testing purposes (2000 and 2003) exists as virtual
> > mashines on one big host server. Network settings for
> > these VMs are identical (except IP address, of course).
> >
> > We have on remote client request executing time (getting 3000 rows
> > from DB ~
> > 1.4 Mb amount - measured via Network Monitor) about 3 sec on Windows
> > 2000 VM and 50 (!) sec for 2003 VM. For local request both time are
> > identical and ~
> > 1.5 sec.
> > Without using RDS both machines have similar responce time for remote
> > client characteristics, so the root of problem is RDS.
> > Anybody have such problem? How to configure RDS on Windows 2003 to
> > avoid such strange behaviour?
> >
> > Thanks for any suggestions,
> > Nick
>
>
> To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure RDS will work on W2003. I gave up
> on that beast (RDS) 5 yrs ago. It did not work well then, and I'm pretty
> sure it still does not work well. You may get it working well on your test
> machines, but when it comes time to deploy it into production, you will
> discover many configuration problems (I'm speaking from experience - I
spent
> several weeks developing an application using RDS - due to the client and
> server configuration issues after deployment, I wound up having to rewrite
> that app).
>
> Look into using XMLHTTP instead if you need to do data access in
client-side
> code.
>
> Bob Barrows
>
>
> --
> Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
> Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
> don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
> "NO SPAM"
>
>

>
> To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure RDS will work on W2003. I gave up
> on that beast (RDS) 5 yrs ago. It did not work well then, and I'm pretty
> sure it still does not work well. You may get it working well on your test
> machines, but when it comes time to deploy it into production, you will
> discover many configuration problems (I'm speaking from experience - I
spent
> several weeks developing an application using RDS - due to the client and
> server configuration issues after deployment, I wound up having to rewrite
> that app).
>

This is simply not true. We use RDS under Win2003 without any problems at
all. Indeed, the reason we use it is that it is incredibly efficient, and in
our hands, is MUCH more efficient than web services. For our application,
this is very important.

That's not to say that one should look for alternative solutions insofar
that RDS has been deprecated.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to address the problem that the OP posted,
not having experienced it myself.

Brian

Brian Muth wrote:
>> To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure RDS will work on W2003. I
>> gave up on that beast (RDS) 5 yrs ago. It did not work well then,
>> and I'm pretty sure it still does not work well. You may get it
>> working well on your test machines, but when it comes time to deploy
>> it into production, you will discover many configuration problems
>> (I'm speaking from experience - I spent several weeks developing an
>> application using RDS - due to the client and server configuration
>> issues after deployment, I wound up having to rewrite that app).
>>
>
> This is simply not true. We use RDS under Win2003 without any
> problems at all.

Bravo! There aren't a lot of people who can make this claim, based on my
google searches and conversations with other developers. You are to be
congratulated.

> Indeed, the reason we use it is that it is
> incredibly efficient, and in our hands, is MUCH more efficient than
> web services. For our application, this is very important.
>

Well, I did not say anything about using web services so I'm not sure of the
relevance of this. From my standpoint, it has been much more trouble-free to
use XMLHTTP for client-server communications. I have not had to touch a
client machine to make it work, whereas I had many client configuration
issues when attempting to use RDS.

As for efficiency/performance, I have not been able to test this so I can
make no comment.

Bob Barrows

--
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"

>
> Well, I did not say anything about using web services so I'm not sure of
the
> relevance of this. From my standpoint, it has been much more trouble-free
to
> use XMLHTTP for client-server communications. I have not had to touch a
> client machine to make it work, whereas I had many client configuration
> issues when attempting to use RDS.
>

We actually did experiment with XMLHTTP and did some benchmarks against RDS,
and found that XMLHTTP ran about 30% to 50% slower. The gap also seemed to
increase with the size of the payloads being transferred. This was about two
years ago, so I can't claim this is would be the same today.

And you are right about the fact that Win2003 requires some extra
configuration steps. I've posted the recipe here before, but I can repost it
again if anyone is interested.

Curious that you have had client configuration issues. I've never had a
client problem. The configuration changes I've made have always been on the
server end.

Brian

Brian Muth wrote:

>
> Curious that you have had client configuration issues. I've never had
> a client problem. The configuration changes I've made have always
> been on the server end.
>
My memory about the specifics of the client problems is very hazy. The app
would run on most of the clients, but there were a couple here and there
where it would not run, despite upgrading MDAC, etc. After a couple client
machines had to be rebuilt, the "request" was made for me to rewrite the
application without RDS. Given the server configuration issues we also
faced, our organization was decidedly soured on RDS after this. They won't
even allow ADO code to be used on the client, so I can't even pass
recordsets to the client via xmlhttp - all my client-side stuff is done with
xml documents.

Everything I've used xmlhttp for has performed adequately, but my
requirements are probably different from yours. Since you have it working,
all I can say is "more power to you".

Bob Barrows

--
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"

Thanks for reply, Brian

Are you test your apps with sufficient transition to remote machine data
amount (> 1 Mb)?
No experienced inexplicable delays discovered at all?

Nick

"Brian Muth" <> wrote in message
news:ewMT#...
> This is simply not true. We use RDS under Win2003 without any problems at
> all. Indeed, the reason we use it is that it is incredibly efficient, and
in
> our hands, is MUCH more efficient than web services. For our application,
> this is very important.
>
> That's not to say that one should look for alternative solutions insofar
> that RDS has been deprecated.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know how to address the problem that the OP posted,
> not having experienced it myself.
>
> Brian
>
>

I assume you mean "transmission" and not "transition".

We have used RDS to move upwards of 50 MB of data in a single method call.
Of course, there is a delay of several seconds because the network traffic
becomes the bottleneck, but this has nothing to do with RDS per se. And it
works.

Brian

Thanks for reply, Brian

"Brian Muth" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I assume you mean "transmission" and not "transition".

Yes. Sorry for words mismatch. English is not my native language.

>
> We have used RDS to move upwards of 50 MB of data in a single method call.
> Of course, there is a delay of several seconds because the network traffic
> becomes the bottleneck, but this has nothing to do with RDS per se. And it
> works.
>
> Brian
>
Good news. This give hope to us.

>
>