David


For a radical idea had you thought of testing if the server works under wine on Linux - I've been testing some of my homebrew software under wine on :Linux Mint 20. I'm using an ultrabook:

Processor:  Intel Celeron N3350 Dual-Core
Processor Speed: 1.10 GHz
Maximum Resolution:1920 x 1080
Screen Size:11.6 in

so its not fast. However, the only thing that caused me problems was the screen resolution. Fortunately I have ElasticForm so quick set to resolution independence and wapping the font size up a  bit cured it. Can't comment about DBISAM but ElevateDB applications are fine.



Roy Lambert

Roy Lambert wrote:

David


For a radical idea had you thought of testing if the server works under wine on Linux - I've been testing some of my homebrew software under wine on :Linux Mint 20. I'm using an ultrabook:


Hi Roy, not if I am honest my experience with Linux is less that zero if that is possible, but I have heard of it

I have looked around on this issue and as previously said that information is scarce but from what I can glean, it appears that when it comes to limits on sharing, it is only if you are sharing file or print services or other MS services that these limits apply, 3rd Party ie DBISam is not restricted by these limits, it is just the MS make this as clear as mud.  There used to be a connection limit of 20, but apparently this was removed from Vista up.

When you think about it, the EULA says you are limited to File, Print, IIS and telephony.  However if that was the case, it would be against the EULA to use something like p2p or the likes that was not prevalent when Windows 7 first came out.

On 11/25/2020 3:52 PM, David wrote:

> I have looked around on this issue and as previously said that information is scarce but from what I can glean, it appears that when it comes to limits on sharing, it is only if you are sharing file or print services or other MS services that these limits apply, 3rd Party ie DBISam is not restricted by these limits, it is just the MS make this as clear as mud.  There used to be a connection limit of 20, but apparently this was removed from Vista up.

Again not a lawyer but it says this which could read either way (the
"only" part esp[ecially):

f. Device Connections. You may allow up to 20 other devices to access
software installed on the licensed computer to use only File Services,
Print Services, Internet Information Services and Internet Connection
Sharing and Telephony Services.


> When you think about it, the EULA says you are limited to File, Print, IIS and telephony.  However if that was the case, it would be against the EULA to use something like p2p or the likes that was not prevalent when Windows 7 first came out.

In this case i think they are just trying to prevent mass use of desktop
OS as as server and this allows them to pursue this legally if really
needed. Trying to map out what is or is not allowed is not even possible.

Practically speaking i think it' up to your interpretation of EULA.

I'd still be curious IF this works or not with actual 60 PCs (meaning 60
devices connecting in to this PC)

As i side note p2p was quite popular at the time - pretty sure i have
some mp3's somewhere i got from Napster or Kazaa or such around that
time or even before still

Raul

Raul wrote:

On 11/25/2020 3:52 PM, David wrote:

I'd still be curious IF this works or not with actual 60 PCs (meaning 60
devices connecting in to this PC)


Raul

Yeah I am even more curious if it would work or not myself.  I am unsure how to test this without invoking 60 different PCs which really isn't easy to do at the best of times.  Do you think running the client 10 times or more on one PC would work so I would only need 6 PCs?  Each client would be a separate session, just same IP.

David


Wether 60+ physical connections can be achieved or not I don't know but I'd guess yes. However, there's a major difference between 60 connections sitting there doing nothing most of the time and  60 connections hammering the server.

You can test the latter with a single PC. A routine that sends a reasonably demanding SQL request over to the server that doesn't result in write locks on a table (probably better if you have several tables you could use) and monitor the response time. A loop to launch multiple copies of the app which would set up its own connection. You may need to have the app try a connection and once its succeeded go to sleep for 30 minutes so all of the copies of the app can connect before launching the storm of requests.


Roy Lambert

On 11/26/2020 4:46 AM, Roy Lambert wrote:

> Wether 60+ physical connections can be achieved or not I don't know but I'd guess yes. However, there's a major difference between 60 connections sitting there doing nothing most of the time and  60 connections hammering the server.
>

Good point - any throttling would only be visible with connections
exchanging non-trivial amount of data.

My main interest is to see thsi with 60 separate source IPs still to
make it a true 60 devices from IP stack perspective (vs few devices with
many connections each).

Agree that this is tricky to test - especially to get over that 20 mark
even.

Raul

Raul

>My main interest is to see thsi with 60 separate source IPs still to
>make it a true 60 devices from IP stack perspective (vs few devices with
>many connections each).
>
>Agree that this is tricky to test - especially to get over that 20 mark
>even.

I don't think any of us can help if its a LAN based operation he needs to simulate but I'd guess we could recruit a small task force to test if WAN based. I'd be willing to participate depending on time differentials. pI'd guess even if I'm in bed snoring I could set a timer up to do it.

Roy

Roy Lambert wrote:


I don't think any of us can help if its a LAN based operation he needs to simulate but I'd guess we could recruit a small task force to test if WAN based. I'd be willing to participate depending on time differentials. pI'd guess even if I'm in bed snoring I could set a timer up to do it.

Roy

Oh thanks very much for offering Roy very kind of you but yes it is a LAN based operation.  I think what I will probably do is get a few PC's and run multiple clients on them setup to automate read/write operations to get an idea of how it would perform.  My only main concern really was if Windows would prevent me doing this on a Windows 7 computer, but from what I have read it doesn't restrict 3rd party TCP/IP.

Although I said up to 60 users, not all 60 will be reading/writing at the same time, in fact largely people tend to just hand around in the database all day making the odd read/write on different computers, it is not being tasked all the time. As the app works fine at the moment on a Win Server 2008 R2 machine, I have no reason to think it would not work the same in Windows 7 unless MS restricted it.  I should explain, it is actually 4 different databases using the one server executable on the same machine.

Regards
David.