In fact, the more I look at it, I think that's where the problem lies...  I'll try that first thing tomorrow and see if it makes any difference...

I went ahead and logged in to my machine at work and changed the code and MAN what a difference!

I'd always closed all the detail tables before the master before, but must have reversed it at some point!  All is well now and thanks for your help!

Thanks for the update - always good to know it's a logical solution and
not some (untraceable) network/file share issue.

Raul


On 4/10/2012 4:04 PM, Robert D. Smith wrote:
> I went ahead and logged in to my machine at work and changed the code and MAN what a difference!
>
> I'd always closed all the detail tables before the master before, but must have reversed it at some point!  All is well now and thanks for your help!
>

Believe me, I felt like an absolute idiot right after I'd posted the CloseDB routine.  I still don't know when I reversed those lines...

Bothered me so much, I couldn't even wait until today to try it, so I remoted into my PC at work.

Also, what I really didn't understand was the difference between running on the Terastation and the Linux box and also the difference between DBISAM and AbsoluteDB.

I just kept looking in the wrong places!

Been there myself.

Based on some NG postings here i know that windows file share
performance changes (slows down) once you have 2 or more users (vs
single user) so could the performance difference with the terastation be
due to this during testing ?  Otherwise it might have to remain one of
those file share mysteries.

Raul


On 4/11/2012 7:48 AM, Robert D. Smith wrote:
> Also, what I really didn't understand was the difference between running on the Terastation and the Linux box and also the difference between DBISAM and AbsoluteDB.
>
> I just kept looking in the wrong places!
>

Raul / Robert


My guess is that Raul hit on the answer when he posted

<<1. Any chance your history header (master table) selection changes when
during shutdown? This would result in history (detail table) to reload data.>>

As you had it

 DBISAMTblOASHistoryHeader.Close;


closes the master table and thus releases the constraint on the detail table which then promptly tries to display everything. Only when this has finished do you move onto

DBISAMTblOASHistory.Close;


Advantage obviously handles the closes in a different way.

Roy Lambert [Team Elevate]

When I was testing on the fileserver, I made sure noone was using the database, so I don't think that was the issue.  Must just be the way Samba handles the fileshare vs. whatever the TeraStation is using...

Raul wrote:


Based on some NG postings here i know that windows file share
performance changes (slows down) once you have 2 or more users (vs
single user) so could the performance difference with the terastation be
due to this during testing ?

In both cases they are using SMB protocol but it's most likely that
Terastation uses SMBv1 (most NAS's do) while if it's recent release of
Samba it might be using SMBv2.

There is also a desktop side impact since Win7 (and Vista) support SMBv2
but WinXP for example would be SMBv1 still.
In theory Win7 against the Smaba with SMBv2 should be fastest but not
sure if that is true in the real world.

To determine this would require a whole lot of testing and since issue
is solved we can leave it be.

Raul


On 4/11/2012 10:32 AM, Robert D. Smith wrote:
> When I was testing on the fileserver, I made sure noone was using the database, so I don't think that was the issue.  Must just be the way Samba handles the fileshare vs. whatever the TeraStation is using...
>
> Raul wrote:
>
>
> Based on some NG postings here i know that windows file share
> performance changes (slows down) once you have 2 or more users (vs
> single user) so could the performance difference with the terastation be
> due to this during testing ?
>

Robert,

<< I went ahead and logged in to my machine at work and changed the code and
MAN what a difference! >>

Do you have a filter on the detail table in addition to the master-detail
linkage ?  Just closing a detail table shouldn't cause that much activity
across the network, and DBISAM will most definitely not read the entire
detail table just because the master-detail linkage is gone.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com