Subscribe via RSS
Toggle Submenu
  1. Categories
  2. Recent
  3. Tags
View Replies (4)

Resolved Anyone noticing PB2017 compiled Windows app running slower than PB12.6

  1. Issue
0
Votes
Undo
  1. Bill Asby
    Bill Asby
  2. PowerBuilder
  3. Monday, 24 September 2018 17:16 PM UTC

We recently got PowerBuilder 2017. We migrated a PowerBuilder 12.6 Windows application using the PB2017 IDE. We then built the application and deployed it onto one of our test machines [running Windows 10]. We have found noticeable differences in the compiled application performance between the new PB2017 version and one of our previous PB12.6 versions. Most noticeable are screen launches which are instantaneous with the PB 12.6 but take 5 to 10 seconds with the PB2017. 

I am curious if anyone else has observed slower performance with PB2017

I appreciate any comments or suggestions.

Thanks

 

Datawindow importstring : suppressing errors
GetSource Problem in WebBrowser Control
Responses (4)
Bill Asby
Bill Asby Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
  1. Wednesday, 27 May 2020 14:56 PM UTC
  2. PowerBuilder
  3. # 1

05/27/2020

I finally figured out this PowerBuilder 2017 performance issue.

We were forced to upgrade to PB 2017 R3 because our license expired for PB 12.6 for unknown reasons.

When we migrated the PB 12.6 project and built it, we experienced the same slow performance that we saw with PB 2017 R2. As a hail mary, we decided to just include ALL of the DLLs, LIBs, etc. from the PowerBuilder Shared folder. Low and behold the performance issue went away.

Previously, we had always usied the PowerBuilder Runtime Packager to determine which DLLs, LIBs, etc. to include with our application. Well apparently, the Runtime Packager is not very reliable.

Anyway, my boss is quite disappointed that back in 2018 when we reported this issue, that the Appeon folks did not figure this out. We were told at the time there was nothing that could be done and that PB 2017 R2 was not supported on Windows 10.

 

 

Comment
Armeen Mazda @Appeon
  1. Armeen Mazda @Appeon
  2. Wednesday, 27 May 2020 15:15 PM UTC
Hi Bill,

Thanks for sharing the solution!

I want to clarify that PowerBuilder 2017 R2 has always supported Windows 10. Here is the docs for that version to prove it: https://docs.appeon.com/appeon_online_help/pb2017r2/installation_guide_for_pb/ch03s02.html

I also want to clarify that we have not encountered any other customers with the issue you described on PB 2017 R2. Certainly, if we had more than a single case of this we could have advised you better.

Lastly, I want to clarify that PowerBuilder is sold on a subscription basis not by version. So when you have a valid subscription you can use any version of PowerBuilder you wish. I don't see reason why to keep using PB 2017 R2 compared to PB 2017 R3, but if you wanted to you could.

Best regards,

Armeen
  1. Helpful
Bill Asby
  1. Bill Asby
  2. Wednesday, 27 May 2020 15:24 PM UTC
my previous post was incorrect. our license for PB 12.6 expired in April of this year forcing us to move to PB 2017. We had stayed with PB 12.6 because it did not have the issues that we observed with PB 2017.

I did not make up that we were told that Windows 10 was NOT supported by PB 2107. Why would I? At the time it seemed like an effort from Appeon to wash their hands of an issue they did not want to waste time supporting since perhaps we were the only customer complaining of this. Bottom line is the Runtime Packager failed to identify the libraries that were needed given the features that we were using, which was quite limited. And PB 12.6 and its runtime packager worked fine.

  1. Helpful
Armeen Mazda @Appeon
  1. Armeen Mazda @Appeon
  2. Wednesday, 27 May 2020 15:29 PM UTC
I did not mean to imply you made it up. I'm was trying to point out there must have been some miscommunication or misunderstanding. If you provide us with the ticket #, we will carefully look into this and better train our support team to avoid this in the future.

Also, if you can let us know what features you are using, we will try to reproduce the problem of runtime packager not selecting correct DLLs and fix it so in the future you can rely on the runtime packager.

Thanks!
  1. Helpful
There are no comments made yet.
Armeen Mazda @Appeon
Armeen Mazda @Appeon Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
  1. Monday, 24 September 2018 23:17 PM UTC
  2. PowerBuilder
  3. # 2

There are no known performance issues with window opening.  Have you tried to test both PB 12.6 and PB 2017 side-by-side on a few different machines so that you have a controlled comparison and also you are sure it is not machine-specific?

Can you open a support ticket and provide a reproducible test case?  We have both PB 12.6 and 2017 so we could do side-by-side analysis in our labs.  Support ticket can be opened here: https://www.appeon.com/standardsupport/ 

 

 

Comment
Bill Asby
  1. Bill Asby
  2. Tuesday, 25 September 2018 12:46 PM UTC
Hello Armeen,'

We have done numerous side by side tests and our PB 12.6 compiled application consistently has no delay and while the PB2017 compiled application has delays. The test cases are as simple as that.

Thanks

  1. Helpful
Armeen Mazda @Appeon
  1. Armeen Mazda @Appeon
  2. Tuesday, 25 September 2018 16:28 PM UTC
Please open a support ticket. To best of my knowledge nobody else has this problem.
  1. Helpful
There are no comments made yet.
Bill Asby
Bill Asby Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
  1. Monday, 24 September 2018 19:18 PM UTC
  2. PowerBuilder
  3. # 3

Intel® HD Graphics 4600

Comment
There are no comments made yet.
Chris Pollach @Appeon
Chris Pollach @Appeon Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
  1. Monday, 24 September 2018 19:08 PM UTC
  2. PowerBuilder
  3. # 4

Hi Bill;

  I have not noticed any performance issues with my R3 vs 12.6 based Apps. However, I am running on W10 Spring Creator edition on real  PC's (AMD based CPUs); high end NVIDA graphics cards; and using SA & SS DBMS.

  Can you tell us more about your environment?

Thanks ... Chris

 

Comment
Load more comments
Chris Pollach @Appeon
  1. Chris Pollach @Appeon
  2. Tuesday, 25 September 2018 13:33 PM UTC
Hi BIll;

You took the words right out of my mouth! That was going to be my next question. The RTE Control and RTE DW are now fueled by a new 3rd party (TE) control under-the-hood in PB2017. Appeon have heard of definite performance issues under Citrix with this new control and as such, have been making "tweaks" to the surrounding code in R2 & R3 releases. At the moment, any delays with RTE Controls and DWO's could certainly be the TE control.

I just checked the ticket system and your problem seems to be related to ticket #582. Engineering does not seem to have a fix for this at the moment. FYI: https://www.appeon.com/support/documents/appeon_online_help/pb2017/release_bulletin_for_pb/ch02s04.html

The great news is that the PB2018 release will also include the old TX Control that was present in PB 12.x. You will have the ability to choose either the new TE Control or the TX Control when you build & run your PB Apps. The returning TX Control will be the same version as was in PB 12.6.

HTH

Regards ... Chris

  1. Helpful
Bill Asby
  1. Bill Asby
  2. Thursday, 27 September 2018 15:08 PM UTC
Chris,

Thanks for the information and your reply. I did not get a notification that you had replied so I just read this today [9/27].

The Powers That Be here panicked and decided to go back to PowerBuilder 12.6 since our upcoming release date is closing in. Their confidence in PB2017 is not too high right now. This will give us more time to play around with PB2017, hopefully R3, before our next release.

Thanks.
  1. Helpful
Bill Asby
  1. Bill Asby
  2. Friday, 28 September 2018 14:47 PM UTC
Update:

We moved our project back to PB12.6 and the compiled application performance is back to normal. There is definitely a difference between PB2017 and PB12.6 performance with our application.

  1. Helpful
There are no comments made yet.
  • Page :
  • 1


There are no replies made for this question yet.
However, you are not allowed to reply to this question.
We use cookies which are necessary for the proper functioning of our websites. We also use cookies to analyze our traffic, improve your experience and provide social media features. If you continue to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies.