Skip to main content

[archive] Performance after runtime 8.0/8.1.0..?

  • December 3, 2009
  • 21 replies
  • 0 views
D

[Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

thanks

    21 replies

    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    If you use acuserver with your runtime, than v 8 may be slower. Some socket work done in v8 slowed the transfer of data down. This has been remedied and is in version 8.1.2 which should deliver in mid January 2010.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    If you use acuserver with your runtime, than v 8 may be slower. Some socket work done in v8 slowed the transfer of data down. This has been remedied and is in version 8.1.2 which should deliver in mid January 2010.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    If you use acuserver with your runtime, than v 8 may be slower. Some socket work done in v8 slowed the transfer of data down. This has been remedied and is in version 8.1.2 which should deliver in mid January 2010.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We have experienced this a bit on some Windows Servers without AcuServer, particularly when a UNC name is used. We're not entirely sure whether it has to do with the version of runtime or other factors, but we had more reports with the 8.1 runtime than we did with previous versions.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We have also had some of our customer call and complain recently and we are currently working on trying to duplicate the problem. We are switching from the 7.0 to the 8.1 runtime. I'll let everybody know when/if we get the problem duplicated.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We have also had some of our customer call and complain recently and we are currently working on trying to duplicate the problem. We are switching from the 7.0 to the 8.1 runtime. I'll let everybody know when/if we get the problem duplicated.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We've given up for the foreseeable future upgrading (100 mostly windows network) user sites from 6.2 to 8.1 because the 8.1 performance is so poor compared with 6.2. We had hoped to use 8.1 to support our web portal feature. In particular our sites report that each additional workstation logged in degrades the performance "exponentially" (whatever that means.) I have not been able to produce a reliable test program that reproduces the issue. In fact, all of our in house networks, which usually match the typical user sites, do not show the problem.
    Any clue would be greatly appreciated.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We've given up for the foreseeable future upgrading (100 mostly windows network) user sites from 6.2 to 8.1 because the 8.1 performance is so poor compared with 6.2. We had hoped to use 8.1 to support our web portal feature. In particular our sites report that each additional workstation logged in degrades the performance "exponentially" (whatever that means.) I have not been able to produce a reliable test program that reproduces the issue. In fact, all of our in house networks, which usually match the typical user sites, do not show the problem.
    Any clue would be greatly appreciated.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We've given up for the foreseeable future upgrading (100 mostly windows network) user sites from 6.2 to 8.1 because the 8.1 performance is so poor compared with 6.2. We had hoped to use 8.1 to support our web portal feature. In particular our sites report that each additional workstation logged in degrades the performance "exponentially" (whatever that means.) I have not been able to produce a reliable test program that reproduces the issue. In fact, all of our in house networks, which usually match the typical user sites, do not show the problem.
    Any clue would be greatly appreciated.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We appear to have solved our degraded 8.1 performance issue.
    We removed
    FILE_IO_PEEKS_MESSAGES 1
    from our Acu Config file, and now our 8.1 user sites report excellent performance.
    According to our records we added the FILE_IO_PEEKS for 6.2 because our programs performance displays were being frozen and the Window's title bar included "(Not responding)" even though the programs were still running. There is no word yet as whether or not that problem is present in 8.1 without FILE_IO_PEEKS.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    File operations are crucial to performance. Thus, Windows messages are by default not handled to optimize for speed during non IO operations. The side effect of this performance boost? A non responsive window.

    A nice way to circumvent this is if your time extensive file operations provide a mechanism to cancel the operation or inform the user of the status, like for instance a dialog showing progress. Such a dialog would not have to be updated all the time, but at a reasonable interval, say for instance for each 30 record or whatever.

    Doing this would be an improvement to the usability of your application as well as handling the non responsive issue in parallel with maintaining performance.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    File operations are crucial to performance. Thus, Windows messages are by default not handled to optimize for speed during non IO operations. The side effect of this performance boost? A non responsive window.

    A nice way to circumvent this is if your time extensive file operations provide a mechanism to cancel the operation or inform the user of the status, like for instance a dialog showing progress. Such a dialog would not have to be updated all the time, but at a reasonable interval, say for instance for each 30 record or whatever.

    Doing this would be an improvement to the usability of your application as well as handling the non responsive issue in parallel with maintaining performance.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We seemed to have soled our degraded 8.1 performance issue as well.

    We added NT-OPP-LOCK-STATUS FAST to our config file and our 8.1 user sites report excellent performance. This had made a minimal impact on performance for us in recent revisions (using 7.3, 7.0.1, and 6 runtimes), but it made a huge impace on our 8.1 performance for some reason.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We seemed to have soled our degraded 8.1 performance issue as well.

    We added NT-OPP-LOCK-STATUS FAST to our config file and our 8.1 user sites report excellent performance. This had made a minimal impact on performance for us in recent revisions (using 7.3, 7.0.1, and 6 runtimes), but it made a huge impace on our 8.1 performance for some reason.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We seemed to have soled our degraded 8.1 performance issue as well.

    We added NT-OPP-LOCK-STATUS FAST to our config file and our 8.1 user sites report excellent performance. This had made a minimal impact on performance for us in recent revisions (using 7.3, 7.0.1, and 6 runtimes), but it made a huge impace on our 8.1 performance for some reason.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We have also put back customers from 8 to version 7. They also complained about the performance. Put them back to runtime 7 and they had back there old performance. Now I read about the NT_OPP_LOCK_STATUS, but this can result in corrupt data. Which of course I would not try by our customer.
    I could not find a good statement form MicroFocus about this problem.

    When runtime 7 works fine and runtime 8 has bad performance(with the same cbx and the same hardware), MicroFocus should give a solution wich could not result in corrupt files.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    For what it is worth over the past few months we have installed v8.1 with NP_OPP_LOCK_STATUS on several sites after all the workstations were updated to the current version of Windows, Vista, or Win7. We have had excellent performance and no reports of data corruption. MicroFocus was unable to specify which Windows upgrades were necessary to avoid the corruption issue referenced in the doc. I suspect it refers to a problem with very old versions of Windows.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    For what it is worth over the past few months we have installed v8.1 with NP_OPP_LOCK_STATUS on several sites after all the workstations were updated to the current version of Windows, Vista, or Win7. We have had excellent performance and no reports of data corruption. MicroFocus was unable to specify which Windows upgrades were necessary to avoid the corruption issue referenced in the doc. I suspect it refers to a problem with very old versions of Windows.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We have experienced the same results as Sal.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We have experienced the same results as Sal.
    D

    [Migrated content. Thread originally posted on 03 December 2009]

    Many of our customers complained about significant decline in performance after release rt 8.0. We referred to the message from Microfocus that 8.10 would solve these problems.

    I thought 8.10 improved the perf. as customer feedback was somewhat reduced afterwards, but quite alot of customers still report that the system is slower now, at least than prior to rt 8.0.

    Before we investigate if this is rooted in our application's code I would like to know if there are known issues with rt >8.0, compared to peformance of earlier runtime versions.

    thanks
    We have experienced the same results as Sal.

    Recent badge winners

    Explore all badges
    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement