Justin
2005-02-27 01:14:38 UTC
First I'll give a brief overview of our MAS90 configuration. Originally
we had one 2000 Server running MAS90. We had about 4 local connections
to the server, and had perhaps 4 or 5 remote connections (using remote
desktop in 2000 Server). When everyone was logged on things would
really be bogged down. When not so many people were logged on, things
ran fantastic. In reality, our issue was performance inconsitancy.
In response our IT Consultant added a Windows 2003 Server that would be
used strictly as a remote access / Terminal Service server, while the
data and processing would reside on the original 2000 server.
The problem now, is consitancy has been achieved, but at a rate much
slower then the ideal conditions on the original server. For example,
when printing bills to a high-speed Minolta Digital Copier (both the
client, and printer are remote) we pump out about one bill per minute
(if lucky). It seems the report should be prepared in a few minutes,
and immediatly buffer to the printer? The performance is unacceptable.
We are trying to determine where the bottleneck is, I'm guessing the
slow down could be the data transfers from the main server to the
remote server over a 1Gig ethernet connection. Locally the reports
prepare much much faster (what would be expected). This is a relatively
small database of perhaps 15,000 records. When the previous years data
was purged from the database in a test MAS90 file, things remotely ran
much faster. I would still think that there is some other type of
issue. Once again related to data transfer between the 2 servers (which
sit right next to each other).
Does anyone have any suggestions for what the problem could be? Would
it make more sense for the two servers to be setup as a Windows
cluster?
Any suggestions for good monitoring tools that could perhaps really
trace where the bottlenecking occurs?
Originally we were told VPN solutions between local and remote office
would suffer poor performance inherent to MAS90 transferring the entire
data file from local to remote clients for processing. This would mean
each time someone logged on via a VPN the entire database would be
pumped over to the client?! This too seems absurd?
Google searches billions of records in milliseconds to millions of
connections, why can't we get 10,000 bills processed in a few minutes?
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Justin
we had one 2000 Server running MAS90. We had about 4 local connections
to the server, and had perhaps 4 or 5 remote connections (using remote
desktop in 2000 Server). When everyone was logged on things would
really be bogged down. When not so many people were logged on, things
ran fantastic. In reality, our issue was performance inconsitancy.
In response our IT Consultant added a Windows 2003 Server that would be
used strictly as a remote access / Terminal Service server, while the
data and processing would reside on the original 2000 server.
The problem now, is consitancy has been achieved, but at a rate much
slower then the ideal conditions on the original server. For example,
when printing bills to a high-speed Minolta Digital Copier (both the
client, and printer are remote) we pump out about one bill per minute
(if lucky). It seems the report should be prepared in a few minutes,
and immediatly buffer to the printer? The performance is unacceptable.
We are trying to determine where the bottleneck is, I'm guessing the
slow down could be the data transfers from the main server to the
remote server over a 1Gig ethernet connection. Locally the reports
prepare much much faster (what would be expected). This is a relatively
small database of perhaps 15,000 records. When the previous years data
was purged from the database in a test MAS90 file, things remotely ran
much faster. I would still think that there is some other type of
issue. Once again related to data transfer between the 2 servers (which
sit right next to each other).
Does anyone have any suggestions for what the problem could be? Would
it make more sense for the two servers to be setup as a Windows
cluster?
Any suggestions for good monitoring tools that could perhaps really
trace where the bottlenecking occurs?
Originally we were told VPN solutions between local and remote office
would suffer poor performance inherent to MAS90 transferring the entire
data file from local to remote clients for processing. This would mean
each time someone logged on via a VPN the entire database would be
pumped over to the client?! This too seems absurd?
Google searches billions of records in milliseconds to millions of
connections, why can't we get 10,000 bills processed in a few minutes?
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Justin