Thanks a lot for your very detailed answer. I will install the MSKB and then I will give it a try. From tests I have performed today it looks as it can be a different issue (I can log on/off users in different order and file handler still works for existing users, only new users have problems but I hope this mskb can fix my issue as well. If it doesn't help I will install W2003 on one machine and will check it. Greetings to all Thin list members Thanks, Zygmunt Cwalinski, System Analyst Network Services ________________________________ From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of TSguy92 Lan Sent: 11-09-2007 4:09 PM To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [THIN] Re: Locked files in FoxPro published applications "but why the same application has no problem when it running on users workstations (20 workstations at the same time) and connecting to the same database files?" ooooh how many times have I heard this question...more often than not the answer is due to the application in question not being terminal server / multiple user running the app from the same system aware. Apps that fall into this category typically write user specific reg values to HKLM instead of HKCU, or sometimes the apps just aren't tuned to use less than 80% of the memory / CPU available for simple functions. (I have an app that would use all 4gb of my server's RAM, and 75% cpu for one user session when I was testing it out . . :( ) Sometimes there are ways around app issues like these, sometimes not. From what you've described though, it looks like the MSKB you linked does appear to be your answer. Although as I read it, it looks like you need to contact MS support to get the hotfix, apply it to a TS server, and then adjust the registry value indicated just to test it out. As long as you're following some sort of change control process and QA'ing the fix / backing-up your TS servers before making these types of adjustments you should be able to spare yourself any major headaches if the update actually causes problems with other pub-apps. If you actually have inhouse Dev resources, it may not hurt to set them up with their own TS server so they can play around with multi-user scenarios and tune their apps accordingly before they make design decisions that work great on their workstations but blow up your TS servers. With VMware server software being free, any powerful workstation could be setup to run terminal server software for software development needs. Case in point for us, one of our Devs was all set to roll out a new application for our org that had a "live" patching feature. So if he made a change to his app during the day and posted it, the next person to login to the app would immediately download, install and run the new version. Sounds great for workstations . . but the app was to be hosted under our TS farm . . and that kinda live product patching doesn't fly on a server farm hosting several hundred connections. *shudder*. Once the dev was setup with his own server to play around in, we guided him to safer update methods that fell within our change control guidelines, and I sleep better at night for it ;). Anywho, back to your issue, I noticed that the MSKB referred specifically to windows 2000 TS servers, I'd be interested if the same problem crops up under Windows 2003 TS boxes. If it doesn't you may have found a good reason to give to management to afford an upgrade :). Lan On 9/11/07, Cwalinski, Zygmunt <zcwalinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: You all are right but why the same application has no problem when it running on users workstations (20 workstations at the same time) and connecting to the same database files? Zygmunt Cwalinski Systems Analyst, Citrix and Terminal Services Network Services, Infrastructure Support, IT Metroland Media Group Ltd. e-mail: ZCwalinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ZCwalinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ________________________________ From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Greenberg Sent: 11-09-2007 12:42 PM To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [THIN] Re: Locked files in FoxPro published applications I think I should frame this post and send it to Jim K. ! Steve Greenberg Thin Client Computing 34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453 Scottsdale , AZ 85262 (602) 432-8649 www.thinclient.net <http://www.thinclient.net/> steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ________________________________ From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Wood Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:22 AM To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [THIN] Re: Locked files in FoxPro published applications And then you call Citrix and they say its a Microsoft problem... And then you realise you simply should've asked this list ;) From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Greenberg Sent: 11 September 2007 17:29 To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [THIN] Re: Locked files in FoxPro published applications But if you talk to the OS people they will say it is a hardware problem and then when you show them clearly how it is none of those they all say it is a Citrix problem! :-) Steve Greenberg Thin Client Computing 34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453 Scottsdale , AZ 85262 (602) 432-8649 www.thinclient.net <http://www.thinclient.net/> steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ________________________________ From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Wood Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:53 AM To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [THIN] Re: Locked files in FoxPro published applications Its not because the developers have forgotten to open a database/table in shared mode is it? Or that when they've implemented a lock for an update they've used a database lock rather than a record lock Because of course, app developers *never* get it wrong, its always the OS' fault. From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cwalinski, Zygmunt Sent: 11 September 2007 14:56 To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [THIN] Locked files in FoxPro published applications We have a strange issue with a FoxPro application. From time to time some DBF files are locked and from FileMon I can see "Sharing Violation" error. Developers says that there is no error in the application and that it works when it run on users' PCs. It's just enough to log off all application's users and everything works again normally for a while (sometimes an hour, sometimes a day) I have come across Microsoft article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/818528/ <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/818528/> were it is suggested to change Windows behavior to maintain the data structures per users instead of per computer but I'm not sure if it helps as we don't have such a problem with any other application. I don't want to change the setting yet because I don't want to screw up other published applications on our servers. Server configuration: Citrix Metaframe XP, Windows 2000 SP4 Do you have any idea? Zygmunt Cwalinski Systems Analyst, Citrix and Terminal Services Network Services, Infrastructure Support, IT Metroland Media Group Ltd. e-mail: ZCwalinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ZCwalinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>