OT: URGENT - Need Input

[TimStone]

I have a problem I have not encountered before. I would appreciate any ideas on what I can check.

This program is built with FWH 13.08, xHarbour ( .com from 2010 ).
The program is using ADS client server, or may be running ADS Local Server.

When starting up, a file is checked on the server ( CONFIG.DBF ). It has values that are used for setting up the client environment. The file is opened in shared mode, values read, and closed immediately.

Most clients using ADS, or even the DBFCDX RDD, have no problem accessing the file and opening the client software, and performing their work.

I have two locations where the customers are using ADS 8.1 ( a 5 user and a 15 user ). At both locations, they can open one computer to access the data files but all of the others fail when trying to open the configuration file from the server.

It only works from the one computer. Previous versions had no problem. If we exit the one computer and try to bring up the program on another one it still fails. We can go back to the one where it worked and it will reopen without any problem.

I have checked the ports, firewall, etc. etc. I can see the drive, and from the Advantage Data Architect I can open the file in question even though the program cannot open it.

I would appreciate any thoughts. I've been on this 3 hours and am getting nowhere. Even wild guesses will help.

Thanks so much.

[Jeff Barnes]

Hi Tim,

I had something "similar" to this happen to me ...
In my case, it turned out that the folder where my files were stored did not grant the other users access.
I would recommend checking the sharing/security permissions on the data folder.

[TimStone]

Actually I went back to an older version of the program and it works fine. So the settings are fine.

[James Bott]

Tim,

Maybe it is a firewall or antivirus issue. If the old EXE was approved by the firewall and/or antivirus it would run fine, but the new EXE is a different file so it is blocked.

I had some trouble with an antivirus/firewall program (Webroot) recently on my development computer. Each time I compiled a program that accessed the internet, it would get blocked and I would have to approve it again. In my situation it was simple to identify the problem since an approve/deny box would pop-up so I knew what was going on. Other firewalls may not do this.

Regards,
James

[TimStone]

Checked that ... but thanks. File has the same name.

[James Bott]

Just because the file has the same name doesn't mean that it will be authorized. The time/date stamp is different, the size is different and the checksum is different; all classic signs of an infection. See also my edit to my previous message.

[George]

Tim,
I agree with James. The antivirus is the most probable cause of this issue.

George

[Jeff Barnes]

James has a very valid point.
I use ZoneAlram and every time I recompile I need to authorize the program (ZoneAlarm also give a pop up).
Once authorized, I can run my app as many times as I want without the pop up but as soon as I recompile I will get the pop up again.

Even though the filesize and name is the same, the firewall sees it as a different app (time/date stamps???)

[TimStone]

In this case, the workstations are Win 7 with Microsoft Security Essentials and the Windows Firewall. I update these files all the time and have never before had a problem. Other identical systems also do not have a problem. Its getting very confusing.

[TimStone]

OK ... so I followed up on that and turned off the firewall. I still have the problem. I turned it back on and set it to allow the program access and there is no success.

My previous build, done with FWH 13.07 ( or perhaps 6 ) had no problems. 13.08 has the problem, as does 13.09. Of course I can't replicate the problem on my own computer which is a major difficulty.

I guess I need to retrace my steps for the past two months to see what could be different.

Other ideas will be greatly appreciated.

[lucasdebeltran]

Timm,

Did you also turn down the antivirus?.

[TimStone]

It is Microsoft Security Essentials. It can't be turned off ... not sure why but there is no exit on it. However, it also does not do any blocking of programs. It only scans for viruses.

[rhlawek]

Tim,

For the clients that fail, what error is being logged regarding the nature of the failure?

I don't use ADS so my next questions may not make sense, but does the failure happen when the client directly accesses the dbf file on the server, or indirectly when ADS tries to open the file on behalf of the client? I'm not asking if it works one way but not the other, I'm asking about the mechanism.

Is there a client side part of this to be considered, such as different dll versions being used for ADS?

Robb

[Richard Chidiak]

Tim

You should check for virtualization and get rid of it if present. This can multiply instances of a file and then your application won't find it as expected.

I had similar problems with a configuration file we used in our software that was in windows folder.

My 2 cents.

You can disable virtualization also by writing to the registry

Anti-virus has nothing to do with this , Microsoft security essentials is OK.

Hth

Richard

[TimStone]

Richard,
Can you point me to a resource so I can understand your point on virtualization, and see how to resolve it ?

Here is why I'm puzzled. I have auto updating running on these computers. They update frequently by receiving a new .exe file. I have never had this happen although auto updating has used this pattern for at least 3 years.

Updates were downloaded and installed at about 80 locations. Each one has multiple computers. Some use ADS Remote Server which is the case here. The client program seeks to open a file and read the data from the server, but it can't open it. If I go back to a file compiled in September, it works perfectly. This one does not. I don't have to change anything to get the older file to work. I just install it back in the exact same directory and it uses the same path and ADS settings. At other locations, all is fine !

I look forward to the info so I can follow up on this possibility.

Tim