RE: Code/400 communications quality (was Terminal Server(citrixandcode400)

["Reeve Fritchman" <reeve@xxxxxxxxxx>]

My XP laptop has 768 mb at 2 gHz; the Win2K desktop is 384 mb @ 1.1 gHz.
Since I can't get WDT/400 reinstalled on the desktop, I'll be laptopping it
for a while; I have had problems with this configuration.

Maybe my desktop memory is too expensive: I can find 128 mb (PC100, SDRAM,
ECC, unbuffered) for $50 on PCConnection.  Dell claims the maximum memory
allowed is 384 mb but there are other reports of >> more working fine.  The
laptop was the dogs' Xmas present to me; I'll have to think of an excuse to
get a new desktop.  My wedding anniversary, perhaps?

The good news is at least two hard-core users are satisfied.  From my
standpoint, there's still a problem but it doesn't appear to be systemic.
So it's not /completely/ hopeless.

Booth and Larry: do you have problems with Verify failing with weird
messages like "unable to contact host" just when Verify's getting the file
specs?  That happens to me regularly; I clear out \wdt400\cache, kill the
CODE processes, and restart; after that, everything works properly.

I'm waiting for WDSCi V5 anyway...it sounds like Toronto's made some good
progress.

-reeve


> -----Original Message-----
> From: code400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:code400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Booth Martin
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:38 PM
> To: code400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Code/400 communications quality (was Terminal Server
(citrixandcode400)
> 
> Larry, I am with you on this.  My experiences of failures have been slight
> and I've been using it far longer than a year.
> 
> What problems I have had seemed to be related to memory leaks from other
> programs causing troubles.
> 
> Reeve, I'd add in this question:  How much RAM have you in your machine?
> Under 256?  If so, buy a stick of 512 for $30 and see if that resolves
your
> problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Booth Martin   http://www.MartinVT.com
> Booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -------Original Message-------
> 
> From: CODE/400 Discussion & Support
> Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 14:04:27
> To: CODE/400 Discussion & Support
> Subject: RE: Code/400 communications quality (was Terminal Server
(citrixand
> code400)
> 
> Just so folks don't think that Reeve's experience is completely universal,
I
> would like to throw my $.02 in about using Code/400 remotely.
> 
> I have been working daily from WI over a cable Internet-VPN connection to
my
> office in CA for over a year. When I have had a failure, the underlying
> cause has been the network or firewall, not the communications daemon.
> Since fixing those underlying problems, the communication failures are
> almost non-existant. This has been true for both 5.1 and 4.0.
> 
> Absolutely I wish Code400 handled the failures better when they occur, but
I
> see that as a separate issue.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: code400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:code400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Reeve Fritchman
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:23 AM
> To: CODE/400 Discussion & Support
> Subject: RE: Terminal Server (Citrix) and Code/400
> 
> 
> I've been told the communications daemon (EVFCTCPD.EXE: despised
throughout
> the universe and the worst piece of comm software I've been force to use
in
> 29 year of midrange experience; my comm-related failure rate over an
> Internet WAN is 11.7%: 119 failures in 1,017 attempts) "will be replaced"
by
> the RSE communications manager...and I remember being unhappy about the
> schedule date.
> 
> We'll see if it appears in WDSC V5, but I don't think it will; I suspect
> OS/400 changes may be necessary to manage comm failures. I'm betting
OS/400
> V5R3 (which would be WDSC V6??? My hair hurts trying to track these
> versions) is the best we can hope for. But I have no inside information,
so
> the best you can do is download source through the LPEX editor, edit using
> CODE, and upload through the LPEX editor. Verify, one of the sweetest
> features of CODE, probably won't work.
> 
> IBM's trying to do a lot with WDSC, and if they're like most other
> businesses they're under-staffed. They have the CODE crowd to appease
while
> jumping onto the Eclipse bandwagon; I'd guess most users are LAN, not WAN,
> and the communications daemon seems to work for in the LAN world.
> 
> -reeve
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This is the CODE/400 Discussion & Support (CODE400-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: CODE400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/code400-l
> or email: CODE400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/code400-l.
> 
> NOTE: WDSc for iSeries disucssion has it's own mailing list.
> Information can be found at
http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/wdsc-l