Is there any reason why a fox pro app using DBF's would be significantly slower on a machine using a SSD drive?
Thanks
Chris Davis Acton Gate Systems Limited
Hilton Hall Business Centre Hilton Lane Essington West Midlands WV11 2BQ M: 07966 020473 *: chrisd@actongate.co.uk Webmailto:chrisd@actongate.co.uk%0bWeb: www.actongate.co.ukhttp://www.actongate.co.uk/
______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html ---
On 26/07/2016 10:47, Chris Davis wrote:
Is there any reason why a fox pro app using DBF's would be significantly slower on a machine using a SSD drive?
Thanks
It should be quicker. I did some tests on my works machine using windows 7 and normal hard drive, then same test at home using windows XP and SSD and was over twice as quick.
Have you checked for the usual virus scanner problems?
Peter
This communication is intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. The contents are confidential and may be protected in law. Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or email.
www.whisperingsmith.com
Whispering Smith Ltd Head Office:61 Great Ducie Street, Manchester M3 1RR. Tel:0161 831 3700 Fax:0161 831 3715
London Office:17-19 Foley Street, London W1W 6DW Tel:0207 299 7960
It's surface 3 vs surface 4 ... Surface 3 is quicker and surface 4 is ssd
On 26 Jul 2016, at 11:10, Peter Cushing pcushing@whisperingsmith.com wrote:
On 26/07/2016 10:47, Chris Davis wrote: Is there any reason why a fox pro app using DBF's would be significantly slower on a machine using a SSD drive?
Thanks
It should be quicker. I did some tests on my works machine using windows 7 and normal hard drive, then same test at home using windows XP and SSD and was over twice as quick.
Have you checked for the usual virus scanner problems?
Peter
This communication is intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. The contents are confidential and may be protected in law. Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or email.
www.whisperingsmith.com
Whispering Smith Ltd Head Office:61 Great Ducie Street, Manchester M3 1RR. Tel:0161 831 3700 Fax:0161 831 3715
London Office:17-19 Foley Street, London W1W 6DW Tel:0207 299 7960
[excessive quoting removed by server]
On 26 July 2016 at 11:09, Peter Cushing pcushing@whisperingsmith.com wrote:
On 26/07/2016 10:47, Chris Davis wrote:
Is there any reason why a fox pro app using DBF's would be significantly slower on a machine using a SSD drive?
Thanks
It should be quicker. I did some tests on my works machine using windows 7 and normal hard drive, then same test at home using windows XP and SSD and was over twice as quick.
SSDs are way more than 2x faster!
Last week I upgraded from an older 240Gb OCZ-VERTEX4 to a 500Gb Samsung 850 EVO (not even the PRO model). The Samsung is insanely fast!
The Samsung software detected I had plugged it into a 3Gb/s interface when my motherboard has 6Gb/s which is nice.
I moved the OCZ to my mini Linux server (a low power Intel NUC).
Used CloneZilla to migrate Windows and Linux partitions without any problems. Highly recommended!
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:47 AM, Chris Davis chrisd@actongate.co.uk wrote:
Is there any reason why a fox pro app using DBF's would be significantly slower on a machine using a SSD drive?
If that's what you're seeing, surely there is a reason!
What are you comparing it to, and how do the two machines differ? If there's a lot less RAM, it might be slower. Or if you've got the temp files settings pointing to the network, that would make a big difference. Or if your virus checker is aggressively checking your DBFs, CDX, etc. Are all your indexes in place? Is there any data corruption? Have you packed and rebuilt indexes? Have you tried turning it off and back on again?
-
Chris Davis -
Paul Hill -
Peter Cushing -
Ted Roche