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

Resolved Performance problems after upgrading to 2019

  1. Issue
0
Votes
Undo
  1. Sverre Tvedt
    Sverre Tvedt
  2. PowerBuilder
  3. Friday, 15 May 2020 13:25 PM UTC

We have upgraded from version 2017 R3 build 1858 to 2019 build 2082, Cloud Edition 32 bit

A.

After deployment, some clients complain about application performance gradually degrading over time, to the point that even dialog windows refreshes painfully slow, in a stepwise fashion.

Is this a known problem with this early build? Memory leak?

B.

If upgrading to R2 is the solution, will the IDE install over the original 2019 or form a separate IDE version?

  1. 32-bit
  2. Memory
  3. PB Classic
Is there any version of PowerBuilder Apps that is ...
Connect to Workplace does not work
Accepted Answer
Armeen Mazda @Appeon
Armeen Mazda @Appeon Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
  1. Friday, 15 May 2020 14:39 PM UTC
  2. PowerBuilder
  3. # Permalink

Hi Sverre,

A. Memory leak

We are not aware of any regression memory leaks between PB 2017 R3 and PB 2019 versions.  It seems strange to me that it only happens for a few of your users.  I wonder if something about their specific environment is problematic?

B. Upgrading to PB 2019 R2

Yes, revisions install over the major release.  So PB 2017 R3 and PB 2019 R2 can be used side-by-side, but PB 2019 and PB 2019 R2 cannot.  PB 2019 R2 would install over PB 2019.

Overall, a revision has more bug fixes so generally speaking it is always best to use the latest revision.  So I would recommend using PB 2019 R2 not PB 2019.

Best regards,
Armeen

Comment
There are no comments made yet.
Responses (2)
Sverre Tvedt
Sverre Tvedt Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
  1. Friday, 15 May 2020 19:47 PM UTC
  2. PowerBuilder
  3. # 1

Thanks, Armeen

Yes, you may be right concerning A. It seems that the 2019 version referred to is more memory consuming, so some few computers have hit a threshold, starting to swap memory against disk. We can deal with that. Otherwise the code is practically the same. 

As to B, we then probably step directly to R2.

 

Once again, thanks

Comment
Armeen Mazda @Appeon
  1. Armeen Mazda @Appeon
  2. Friday, 15 May 2020 20:16 PM UTC
Sounds good. You're welcome.
  1. Helpful
Sverre Tvedt
  1. Sverre Tvedt
  2. Tuesday, 19 May 2020 10:56 AM UTC
R2 solved the problem, without having to add physical memory on problem clients.
  1. Helpful
Armeen Mazda @Appeon
  1. Armeen Mazda @Appeon
  2. Tuesday, 19 May 2020 14:25 PM UTC
Great, thanks for sharing the solution!
  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.