M
mlruehl
Can anyone explain the performance difference in MS Project between
doing a File Open and Save As when using a MS SQL Server database?
Opening a 5MB Project file across our LAN takes only 10 seconds, and
utilizes most of the available bandwidth of the network connection
throughout the transfer. Performing a Save As to a local file takes 20
to 30 times longer than it took the same file to open from the
database. I realize there is a conversion process between the database
format and a local MPP file but the local CPU utilization stays around
10-20 percent. The problem seems to lie in network utilization or ODBC
optimization. There are thousands of packets transferring across the
network throughout the lengthy Save As but these packets seem to be
almost empty as bandwidth utilization averages only 2 to 2.5 percent
consistently.
To eliminate ODBC driver differences we have tested this on both
Windows 2000 and Windows XP with identical results. To eliminate
potential differences between Project versions we have tested on both
Project 2000 and 2003 and also saw no difference. The issue is
experienced by all our users and therefore reduces the chance this is a
local configuration issue, although not eliminating it completely as we
do deploy somewhat standard images. The issue is somewhat annoying
while in the office because the same project can take several minutes
to save to a local hard drive. An ever greater problem is across
broadband where it becomes an outright show-stopper for remote users
(once again only using a fraction of the available broadband capacity
on a Save As). All our remote users have cable modem connections and
have no issue opening the 5MB file but none of them has been successful
at saving a local copy using Project's built-in Save As.
Why does the Save As transfer thousands of packets but very little
data? Is there a way to optimize the ODBC connection between the
Project client and MS SQL server 2000? How else might we be able to
work around this issue to achieve better performance locally and
acceptable performance across high-speed broadband connections?
doing a File Open and Save As when using a MS SQL Server database?
Opening a 5MB Project file across our LAN takes only 10 seconds, and
utilizes most of the available bandwidth of the network connection
throughout the transfer. Performing a Save As to a local file takes 20
to 30 times longer than it took the same file to open from the
database. I realize there is a conversion process between the database
format and a local MPP file but the local CPU utilization stays around
10-20 percent. The problem seems to lie in network utilization or ODBC
optimization. There are thousands of packets transferring across the
network throughout the lengthy Save As but these packets seem to be
almost empty as bandwidth utilization averages only 2 to 2.5 percent
consistently.
To eliminate ODBC driver differences we have tested this on both
Windows 2000 and Windows XP with identical results. To eliminate
potential differences between Project versions we have tested on both
Project 2000 and 2003 and also saw no difference. The issue is
experienced by all our users and therefore reduces the chance this is a
local configuration issue, although not eliminating it completely as we
do deploy somewhat standard images. The issue is somewhat annoying
while in the office because the same project can take several minutes
to save to a local hard drive. An ever greater problem is across
broadband where it becomes an outright show-stopper for remote users
(once again only using a fraction of the available broadband capacity
on a Save As). All our remote users have cable modem connections and
have no issue opening the 5MB file but none of them has been successful
at saving a local copy using Project's built-in Save As.
Why does the Save As transfer thousands of packets but very little
data? Is there a way to optimize the ODBC connection between the
Project client and MS SQL server 2000? How else might we be able to
work around this issue to achieve better performance locally and
acceptable performance across high-speed broadband connections?