Slow backend due to long server name

[bg_ie]

Hi,

My company's backend is located at a location with a long address,
something like -

//our_servers/server_number_o ne/our_department/our_devision/
our_results/our_databases/backend.be

I have tested the very same backend on another server with a sort path
location at it works fine, but at the location above it is extremely
slow. I've also tested the speeds of both servers and they are the
same with regard to coping to and downloading files from each.

I've asked to get the backend moved but I have been met with a wall of
beurocracy since our servers are organised in this departmental
fashion. Today someone even remarked that surely there is a patch for
this problem and that I shouldn't be wasting their time asking to have
files relocated...

So, my question is, is there a patch or an alternative solution to
this problem since the only solution I have found is to move the
database.

Thanks,

Barry.

[Arno R]

<bg***@yahoo.co mschreef in bericht news:4e******** *************** ***********@r29 g2000hsg.google groups.com...

Hi,

My company's backend is located at a location with a long address,
something like -

//our_servers/server_number_o ne/our_department/our_devision/
our_results/our_databases/backend.be

I have tested the very same backend on another server with a sort path
location at it works fine, but at the location above it is extremely
slow. I've also tested the speeds of both servers and they are the
same with regard to coping to and downloading files from each.

I've asked to get the backend moved but I have been met with a wall of
beurocracy since our servers are organised in this departmental
fashion. Today someone even remarked that surely there is a patch for
this problem and that I shouldn't be wasting their time asking to have
files relocated...

So, my question is, is there a patch or an alternative solution to
this problem since the only solution I have found is to move the
database.

Thanks,

Barry.

I am NOT a network guy but...
Ask 'them' to make a share of the directory 'our_databases' (eg 'our_data')
You could then try to link to \\our_servers\o ur_data\backend .be

Arno R

[Tom van Stiphout]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:58:48 +0100, "Arno R"
<ar************ ****@planet.nlw rote:

Would it also help to map a drive letter to that deep path, and link
to x:\backend.mdb?

-Tom.

>
<bg***@yahoo.c omschreef in bericht news:4e******** *************** ***********@r29 g2000hsg.google groups.com...

>Hi,

My company's backend is located at a location with a long address,
something like -

//our_servers/server_number_o ne/our_department/our_devision/
our_results/our_databases/backend.be

I have tested the very same backend on another server with a sort path
location at it works fine, but at the location above it is extremely
slow. I've also tested the speeds of both servers and they are the
same with regard to coping to and downloading files from each.

I've asked to get the backend moved but I have been met with a wall of
beurocracy since our servers are organised in this departmental
fashion. Today someone even remarked that surely there is a patch for
this problem and that I shouldn't be wasting their time asking to have
files relocated...

So, my question is, is there a patch or an alternative solution to
this problem since the only solution I have found is to move the
database.

Thanks,

Barry.

I am NOT a network guy but...
Ask 'them' to make a share of the directory 'our_databases' (eg 'our_data')
You could then try to link to \\our_servers\o ur_data\backend .be

Arno R

[Arch]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:27:39 -0800 (PST), bg***@yahoo.com wrote:

>Hi,

My company's backend is located at a location with a long address,
something like -

//our_servers/server_number_o ne/our_department/our_devision/
our_results/our_databases/backend.be

I have tested the very same backend on another server with a sort path
location at it works fine, but at the location above it is extremely
slow. I've also tested the speeds of both servers and they are the
same with regard to coping to and downloading files from each.

I've asked to get the backend moved but I have been met with a wall of
beurocracy since our servers are organised in this departmental
fashion. Today someone even remarked that surely there is a patch for
this problem and that I shouldn't be wasting their time asking to have
files relocated...

So, my question is, is there a patch or an alternative solution to
this problem since the only solution I have found is to move the
database.

Thanks,

Barry.

There is no patch for this problem. It is a Windows/SMB
characteristic, not an Access bug. Windows needs to authenticate at
each directory layer in the share, so the deeper it is, the slower it
is.

As others have suggested, about the only solution is to get them to
create a share much lower in the directory structure.

[lyle]

On Dec 12, 10:43 am, Arch <send...@spam.n etwrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:27:39 -0800 (PST), [e-mail] wrote:

Hi,

My company's backend is located at a location with a long address,
something like -

//our_servers/server_number_o ne/our_department/our_devision/
our_results/our_databases/backend.be

I have tested the very same backend on another server with a sort path
location at it works fine, but at the location above it is extremely
slow. I've also tested the speeds of both servers and they are the
same with regard to coping to and downloading files from each.

I've asked to get the backend moved but I have been met with a wall of
beurocracy since our servers are organised in this departmental
fashion. Today someone even remarked that surely there is a patch for
this problem and that I shouldn't be wasting their time asking to have
files relocated...

So, my question is, is there a patch or an alternative solution to
this problem since the only solution I have found is to move the
database.

Thanks,

Barry.

There is no patch for this problem. It is a Windows/SMB
characteristic, not an Access bug. Windows needs to authenticate at
each directory layer in the share, so the deeper it is, the slower it
is.

As others have suggested, about the only solution is to get them to
create a share much lower in the directory structure.

For more than ten?? years I have had users' frontend databases linked
to backends so deep I don't even think about remembering the path. And
the servers themselves are in the basement catacombs; rumour is that
if you get lost and stumble into one of these rooms you are never
permitted to leave (well, they're so cold that you freeze to death
pdq).
The names of the folders are not especially short. Toss in "Employee
Services Personnel Manager Class I Teaching Staff" and one can get
some long strings.

The front end is instantaneous in retrieving data from the backend,
and in sending data to the backend. I've fooled around with the
backend on a local machine, and there is no noticeable difference in
the speed of the applications under that condition.

I am nothing of a network geek, but surely Windows does not run
thorugh a full authentication routine everytime I press the down arrow
when browsing a continous form, or run a simple select or update
query?

My guess is that the database and the interface are poorly designed
and that IT knows this and is unwilling to throw any more of its time
at making it work properly.

I'm sorry and apologise if this is an affront to the original poster;
I have no evidence that this is so. I am probably unduly influenced by
the 17 386 249 other posts here which blame anything but themselves
for their problems.

[Arno R]

"Tom van Stiphout" <no************ *@cox.netschree f in bericht news:6f******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:58:48 +0100, "Arno R"
<ar************ ****@planet.nlw rote:

Would it also help to map a drive letter to that deep path, and link
to x:\backend.mdb?

-Tom.

Yes that would help also I guess ...
I did not suggest that because I prefer UNC path's.
I have had 'issues' with mappings before ...
(like one user mapping to X, and another mapping to Y)

Arno R

[Salad]

lyle wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:43 am, Arch <send...@spam.n etwrote:

>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:27:39 -0800 (PST), [e-mail] wrote:

>>>Hi,

>>>My company's backend is located at a location with a long address,
something like -

>>>//our_servers/server_number_o ne/our_department/our_devision/
our_result s/our_databases/backend.be

>>>I have tested the very same backend on another server with a sort path
location at it works fine, but at the location above it is extremely
slow. I've also tested the speeds of both servers and they are the
same with regard to coping to and downloading files from each.

>>>I've asked to get the backend moved but I have been met with a wall of
beurocracy since our servers are organised in this departmental
fashion. Today someone even remarked that surely there is a patch for
this problem and that I shouldn't be wasting their time asking to have
files relocated...

>>>So, my question is, is there a patch or an alternative solution to
this problem since the only solution I have found is to move the
database.

>>>Thanks,

>>>Barry.

There is no patch for this problem. It is a Windows/SMB
characteristi c, not an Access bug. Windows needs to authenticate at
each directory layer in the share, so the deeper it is, the slower it
is.

As others have suggested, about the only solution is to get them to
create a share much lower in the directory structure.

For more than ten?? years I have had users' frontend databases linked
to backends so deep I don't even think about remembering the path. And
the servers themselves are in the basement catacombs; rumour is that
if you get lost and stumble into one of these rooms you are never
permitted to leave (well, they're so cold that you freeze to death
pdq).
The names of the folders are not especially short. Toss in "Employee
Services Personnel Manager Class I Teaching Staff" and one can get
some long strings.

The front end is instantaneous in retrieving data from the backend,
and in sending data to the backend. I've fooled around with the
backend on a local machine, and there is no noticeable difference in
the speed of the applications under that condition.

I am nothing of a network geek, but surely Windows does not run
thorugh a full authentication routine everytime I press the down arrow
when browsing a continous form, or run a simple select or update
query?

My guess is that the database and the interface are poorly designed
and that IT knows this and is unwilling to throw any more of its time
at making it work properly.

I'm sorry and apologise if this is an affront to the original poster;
I have no evidence that this is so. I am probably unduly influenced by
the 17 386 249 other posts here which blame anything but themselves
for their problems.

I'm not sure if this addresses the issue at all.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891176. There's also
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889588/.

It might have been at Tony Toews site or else he had a pointer to a kb
article that mentioned moving the folders close to the root.