Delay in Terminal Server Changes

Hi All,

Has anyone seen the following occur, when using a Terminal Server.

1. Make a change in a Master Table, e.g. Address Book Master
2. Enter an Order, e.g. Sales Order, which is dependent on that Master Table. Instead of the changed result being retrieved from the Address Book onto the Sales Order, the old value is retrieved from the Address Book.
3. Purge Cache from the Form Exit, under the User Options and/or exit application and reenter appplication.
4. Reenter Order. Old value still being retrieved from Address Book.
5. Log off citrix, and long back on. Reenter order. Correct Address Book value appears.
6. This issue does not exist when using a FAT Client.

Has anyone seen this before, or know what might cause it. Is it anything in the Configuration of the Terminal Server? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Hi,

Do you have F0101 in F98613?

Bojan.

Hi Bogan,

Thanks for your response. Yes, we did have the F0101 specified in the F98613. After removing the F0101 form this table, it resolved our problem. However, I'm surpised that we didn't have this problem on a FAT client, but only on the Windows Terminal Server. Do you know why that might be? Thanks so much for your assistance.

I just searched past postings for signs of the problem we are having when we reset our cache on app servers. We are running multiple Unix app servers and clients are Citrix (multiple Citrix servers).

In support of period end we need to change the posting period and reset the cache to make the change available to users. We are finding that when we reset cache and users logout and back in again that some users get the changed F0010 file while some do not. We believe that the problem is somehow Citrix related.

If the clients are J environment then is each clients cache being held on the app server?

If we can't work this out, has anyone removed the F0010 from cache? What kind of performance hit might we take?

If the table is in the F98613, then in theory all the Kernel processes and Fat Clients would theoretically cache that table. Unsure why the initial customer had a problem with the citrix servers and not the fat clients - there might be an issue with the service pack they were dealing with.

The answer to whether a table is suitable to be removed from cacheing (and yes, the F0101 should NOT be cached!) is really dependent on how that table is used and the regularity of that table being updated. If the table is static - then I would certainly suggest cacheing the information to improve performance (ie, reducing the number of times the process selects for that table) - but if there are transactions, no matter how few, then it isn't a candidate for cacheing.