Hi Bob,

>
> The RemoteReadSize buffering doesn't work with RemoteEncryption active.
>

Is this a bug or as designed?

Cheers Stu

Hi Stu

> Is this a bug or as designed?

Tim would have to answer that but I don't believe it was intentional because
RemoteEncryption is pretty important for any serious internet usage.

Rob

"Stuart Kelly" <stuart@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:664148FE-CAB8-430B-BCC4-47C37A46646D@news.elevatesoft.com...
> Hi Bob,
>
>>
>> The RemoteReadSize buffering doesn't work with RemoteEncryption active.
>>
>
> Is this a bug or as designed?
>
> Cheers Stu

Rob,

<< The RemoteReadSize buffering doesn't work with RemoteEncryption active.
>>

Wow, nice catch.  Did you let me know about this before ?

Thanks,

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

David,

<< i only posted 5 request but the log file has 500 request. so, it was not
reduced to 5 request.

if you watch the log there is a request to the sever for each next
procedure call.  >>

Ahh, sorry - I thought that was the whole log.  Rob is correct, however -
the issue is that the request code comparison used to determine whether or
not to use the local cache is being made on an encrypted version of the
transmission header, and therefore is not seeing that there is local cache
available already for the next operation.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Hi Tim

> Did you let me know about this before ?

Yes, we exchanged several e-mails about it almost exactly 3 years ago.  Your
final words were - "Okay, I'll check it out".  RemoteReadSize buffering
isn't of any use for me without blob support (hint, hint) so I didn't hound
you any further about it.

Rob

"Tim Young [Elevate Software]" <timyoung@elevatesoft.com> wrote in message
news:DB9A9AA0-7519-4528-AA61-CE270BB88678@news.elevatesoft.com...
> Rob,
>
> << The RemoteReadSize buffering doesn't work with RemoteEncryption active.
> >>
>
> Wow, nice catch.  Did you let me know about this before ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Tim Young
> Elevate Software
> www.elevatesoft.com

Rob,

<< Yes, we exchanged several e-mails about it almost exactly 3 years ago.
Your final words were - "Okay, I'll check it out".  RemoteReadSize buffering
isn't of any use for me without blob support (hint, hint) so I didn't hound
you any further about it. >>

Sorry, but I don't recall having that conversation.  I'll see if I can
double-check my email backups and see what I said.  I'm just having a hard
time believing that I simply let something like this go, the reason being is
that I keep a physical folder of all printed requests/bugs/suggestions, etc.
and it's rare that something goes missing.  However, it is certainly within
the realm of possibility that I simply didn't print it out and ended up
forgetting about it.

Thanks,

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Hi Tim

> Sorry, but I don't recall having that conversation.

Not really a surprise 3 years later.

> I'll see if I can double-check my email backups and see what I said.

In case you don't still have it, below is the text from your final e-mail to
me on 31/SEP/2004.

Rob

=====================================================

Rob,

<< After further testing my performance problem definitely is caused by
RemoteEncryption conflicting with RemoteReadSize.  As I said in my earlier
email - "With encryption turned off, optimizing RemoteReadSize can give a
nice boost in performance but with encryption turned on it appears that
using RemoteReadSize has a negative effect."

To test, I am simply reading sequentially through a table.  I have tried a
variety of tables with different record lengths and the effect is
consistent.  Without using RemoteReadSize, there isn't any significant
difference with or without encryption.  When RemoteReadSize is increased the
performance improves when not using encryption and gets worse when using
encryption. >>

Okay, I'll check it out.

Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Rob,

<< In case you don't still have it, below is the text from your final e-mail
to me on 31/SEP/2004. >>

Thanks, that saves me some time.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

"Tim Young [Elevate Software]" <timyoung@elevatesoft.com> wrote:

Rob,

<< In case you don't still have it, below is the text from your final e-mail
to me on 31/SEP/2004. >>

Thanks, that saves me some time.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com



Hi Tim,

Looks like this is an opportunity for a serious perfomance boost for applications that transfer data over the Internet and also use remote encryption (like mine). So will there be a fix?

Tony.

Tony,

<< Looks like this is an opportunity for a serious perfomance boost for
applications that transfer data over the Internet and also use remote
encryption (like mine). So will there be a fix? >>

Yes, of course.  However, it will be a week or so due to the pending EDB
1.06 release that needs to be finished first.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com