Re: Tableupdate question

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

Is the soplocks.reg only for servers, our problem is happening on a P2P
network with no servers and I believe they are all running XP. Would
running the woplocks on all the workstations do it?


"Jan" <Nomail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23UygExnNFHA.940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Altman,
>
> Opportunistic locking was a scheme introduced back in the Novell days (so
> I'm told). The idea was that a process that used a file and happened to be
> the only process using that file would lock the file and not worry about
> record locks (seize the opportunity). If another process required access
> to the file then the Server notifies the process holding the file lock and
> asks it to relinquish the file lock and start using record locks. This (it
> appears) was of benefit in applications such as Outlook and seems to have
> hung around in windows and with the advent of SP2 appears to be causing
> more problems in apps like VFP.
>
> Our app had no end of problems since we migrated to VFP8 and XPSP2. After
> discovering the articles on opportunistic locking and turning it off on
> both server and workstations the problem have ceased and the app is now
> stable once again.
>
> Opportunistic locking has no place in a relational DB environment and
> quite frankly probably has no place in a multi tasking OS either.
>
> Here are the registry edits I used.
>
> Cut and paste the following into a file called woplocks.reg
>
>
> REGEDIT4
>
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanmanWorkStation\Parameters]
> "EnableOplockForceClose"=dword:00000001
> "EnableOplocks"=dword:00000000
> "UseOpportunisticLocking"=dword:00000000
>
>
> Cut and paste the following into a file called soplocks.reg
>
> REGEDIT4
>
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanmanServer\Parameters]
> "EnableOplockForceClose"=dword:00000001
> "EnableOplocks"=dword:00000000
>
>
>
> HTH
> Jan
>
> "Altman" <NotGiven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:uVbg5KgNFHA.1528@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Thaks for the reply, the only article I could see that could possibly
>> have an effect is the opportunistic locking in windows. I am not sure I
>> fully understand what it says by "Opportunistic locking allows clients to
>> lock files and locally cache information without the risk of another user
>> changing the file." So in my case user 1 changes a record, and then user
>> 2 somehow overwrites the changes. If opportunistic locking was turned
>> on, wouldn't this mean that user 2 had the lock, because their update
>> actually overwrote it? Also would this mean that the tableupdate from
>> user 1 return a false?
>>
>>
>> "Jan" <Nomail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:OO6xqaYNFHA.1476@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Altman,
>>>
>>> I don't want to sound singleminded, but if you are running under Win2K
>>> or XP either in a peer to peer network or a server based network with
>>> Win2K or Win2003 Server your problem might be opportunistic locking. See
>>> the postings under "Stupid errors", started by Paul Pedderson on the
>>> 25/3.
>>>
>>> Rgds
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> "Altman" <NotGiven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:OWeJmoXNFHA.1176@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> That is what I figured but if it was the other way, that might account
>>>> for some strange things happening to me. I have 2 users that edit 2
>>>> different records and somehow the changes on one of them is getting
>>>> overwritten or not being saved correctly or something else.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Alan C. Sheffield" <asheffield @ park west gallery.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:%23Ej5J1WNFHA.2252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> tableupdate() will only update records you have changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you modified 1-5 and someone else modified 5 when you have 5 in
>>>>> buffer,
>>>>> the force would make VFP overwrite 5 with your changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Altman" <NotGiven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:u4gpuoWNFHA.940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> I'm not sure if I fully understand the lForce parameter of the
>>>>>> tableupdate
>>>>>> command. Let say I have a table buffered with 10 records in it. If
>>>>>> I
>>>>> edit
>>>>>> the first 5 records and at the same time another user is editing the
>>>>>> last
>>>>> 5
>>>>>> records. When I issue the tableupdate with lforce = true, does this
>>>>>> overwrite the other users modifications to the last 5 records, if I
>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>> even editing them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Altman
>>>>>> VFP9
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Want XP Pro file shares accessible on net when computer locked
    ... to lock out network access as well as local. ... machine corresponding to the various network client PC's. ... gaining access to the XP Pro server via the guest account and authenticating ... >>accounts over the net? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)
  • Re: Want XP Pro file shares accessible on net when computer locked
    ... problem was actually that before we upgraded the "server" from XP Home to XP ... logged in and everyone on the network had access to the network shares on her ... the computer goes into screensaver password resume lock they can still access ... >>gaining access to the XP Pro server via the guest account and authenticating ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)
  • Server Lockup Copying File to Network
    ... I ran into a very interesting problem with a standard Windows 2003 server ... I have an installation area that I share out on my small ... I noticed that the server would lock ... the a network share on this machine. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.networking)
  • Re: Opportunistic Locking
    ... >> I need to check that Opportunistic Locking is ON. ... > opportunistic locking on the server (on or or didn't seem to make any ... If the ACT database is stored on a network server, ... SMB Signing and Opportunistic Locking. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.networking)
  • Re: Running Access97 DB on server
    ... Opportunistic locking and SMB signing. ... File Takes an Unexpectedly Long Time to Open Through Server Message Block ... Slow Network Performance When You Open a File That Is Located in a Shared ... I would think access should be able to use the SQL ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)