Subject Re: FBv1.53 customer moved to Win2003 server = big slowdown
Author Adam
> For what? The 3 clients are on different PCs running WinXP. To
> perform gbak/gsec operations I'm using GotoMyPC into one of their
> client PCs and then Remote Desktop to their server. Does that change
> anything?

Remote desktop does not connect to the same session as the database
engine is running so the local protocol will not work. I believe this
is to be enhanced in 2.1 (someone correct me). Because of this, you
will need to connect using the TCP/IP loopback (ie, prepending
'localhost:' to your path).

> > Volume Shadow Copy
> I assume that's a Win2003 feature and not Firebird shadowing.

Yes. Right click C (or whatever drive your database is on) and choose
properties. There is a tab called 'Shadow Copies'.

> > Switching from local protocol and TCP/IP loopback for use in terminal
> > services / remote desktop.
> It was a typical firebird installation with an alias addded to
> alias.conf. When I use gbak/gsec it was unable to find the database
> (I just used the alias) so I had to use "localhost", which is the
> first time I've had to do that.

The reason I have explained above. Another thing that I have seen
happenning is where due to some crazy configuration, localhost is not
set in the hosts file.

Try ping localhost

The first line should be something like:

Pinging MyServer [] with 32 bytes of data:

If it says something else, you may be doing an unnecessary round trip
to a dns server somewhere. If so, add a line to your hosts file to map
it to

> I'm a bit confused by Remote Desktop. Does that really change
> anything, it's still running on the server isn't it?

Very significant, because it is running in a different session. It is
not the same thing as sitting in front of it.

> Sometimes
> > techos go for broke and install every anti-spyware and anti-virus
> > package known to man on a new server.
> There's no anti-virus software on the PC.


> > You will need to actually take a look at the server when it is going
> > slow. Is it CPU bound, Disk bound, network bound? That should point to
> > the solution.
> Yes, that's next on my list.

Let us know what you find. It will point the direction of the problem.

> > I would also try a backup-restore cycle which removes all garbage
> and rebalances all your indices.
> Already done that and they report little difference.

It did your database good anyway even if it does not solve this
immediate problem.