Terminal Services

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Comcast News - 03 Mar 2004 19:03 GMT

Has anyone tried running VFP on a SBS2003 server using Terminal Server? My
client has some databases that are in the 1 Gig range in size and wants to
access them remotely now. VPN or Terminal services? which is the better
option here? Any documentation out on the net regarding this?

Reply to this Message

Lee Mitchell - 03 Mar 2004 20:06 GMT

Hi Jmotley:

I have heard of people running VFP 8.0 on Terminal Services from Windows
2000 and 2003 but not Small Business Server. I am not saying it cannot be
done, I just have not heard of that specific configuration myself.

The most common problem I have seen when running on Terminal Services is
file contention errors, such as error reading or error writing to file. You
can normally overcome these errors my altering the MultiUserEnabled
registry key has shown in this article:

818528 Problems When More Than One User Accesses the Same File Through
Terminal
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=818528

Also, I suggest using the RDP client first and see if all is well. If so,
then you can move to the Citrix client if you desire. If you have a
problem and you are using the RDP client, it can be a little easier to
troubleshoot sicne you are using all Micorsoft products and no third-party
is involved.

I hope this helps.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Sincerely,
Microsoft FoxPro Technical Support
Lee Mitchell

*-- VFP8 HAS ARRIVED!! --*
Read about all the new features of VFP8 here:
http://www.universalthread.com/VisualFoxPro/News/VFP8Release.asp
Purchase VFP8 here:
http://shop.microsoft.com/Referral/Productinfo.asp?siteID=11518

Keep an eye on the product lifecycle for Visual FoxPro here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?id=fh;[ln];lifeprodv
- VFP5 Mainstream Support retired June 30th, 2003
- VFP6 Mainstream Support retires Sept. 30th, 2003

>Has anyone tried running VFP on a SBS2003 server using Terminal Server? My
>client has some databases that are in the 1 Gig range in size and wants to
>access them remotely now. VPN or Terminal services? which is the better
>option here? Any documentation out on the net regarding this?

Reply to this Message

Patrick Tura - 14 Mar 2004 05:45 GMT

I just wonder if this replay is a late:-)

Yes, I am running VFP using Terminal Server. It is quite realistic approach
dealing a huge database like your client.
The noticeable problem that I have noticed is the picture quality on the
frontend side or the Terminal client. Otherwise, everything is much faster
and cost effective in terms of hardware solution.

I have not tested the Windows Server 2003 but they are talking so much about
improvement particularly the colors and resolution. I guess, this server
version is what we need to put up a Terminal solution.

/patrick

> Has anyone tried running VFP on a SBS2003 server using Terminal Server? My
> client has some databases that are in the 1 Gig range in size and wants to
> access them remotely now. VPN or Terminal services? which is the better
> option here? Any documentation out on the net regarding this?

Reply to this Message

Craig Farrel - 09 May 2004 17:21 GMT

My apps run across TS without any problems at all. It is the best way to go. The amount of data across the internet is extremely small because you are only sending clicks and keystrokes, and the server returns screens redraws. I, of course, have a separate version of my app for "soft" client (TS) use, but it's very close to the "hard" client. I recommend 64kbps upstream on the server MINIMUM for each session. Every remote user needs BROADBAND of 384k downstream. Remember that the load on the server is on the UPSTREAM not downstream. The only real hitch so far is the various printer setups. But I have managed to get around every problem so far. All of my clients need to be connected to their server online all the time. I even run it over PocketPC2002/03 TS client. Works wonderfully. I have fully mobile clients in my apps. I highly recommend it. I also recommend you ONLY use server 2003. It is far ahead of 2000 and much easier to use.

Reply to this Message