Error reading socket, ret = 10054, errno = 2 (778)

[ezequiel]

Hello, we have Progress 9.1C in a Windows 2003 serverand workstations; these are in Windows XP. The network switch is a pretty old 3Com.

We recently replaced 5 computers with new ones with Windows 7, and started receiving the error message:
Error reading socket, ret = 10054, errno = 2 (778)

Followed by
** Incomplete write when writing to the server. (735)

The error doesn´t occur all the time, it´s a random thing.

As far as we have been reading, the error is more about some network problem than a Progress one, but there are very wise guys here, and they may have found this same error before.

We though than Windows 7 (or the recent patchs we applied to Wondows 2003 server) was guilty, but now we suspect of the new network cards on the new computers. Maybe they are too quick for the switch.

That is the situation; maybe someone here have seen the error and give us some idea, thank you!

 

[TomBascom]

9.1C, ancient 3-com switches but brand new windows 7 desktops?

I think your (companies) priorities are a bit screwed up...

Anyhow -- if it isn't wonky hardware this kind of thing is often due to firewalls and anti-malware software. That's where you should start looking.

If you are not using -minport & -maxport on the db server you should be. That way you can control the ports being used and you'll have an easier time specifying exceptions.

 

[ezequiel]

Thank you, Tom!

I knew you were going to talk about our old 9.1C and 3Com, because you did it before and you´re right.

The computers are replaced while they are going old. The 3Com switch will be replaced soon, but OpenEdge is too expensive (no, we weren't paying the maintenance... too expensive, also).

Until the new switch comes, we are about to reconfigure the network interfaces in the new computers to make them slower. And we will put all the XP desktops on "Classic Windows" theme. We read at the KB that it is related with another error we found in the log file.

Firewall and anti-malware are not the problem, we think.

But I'm about to read some of -minport and -maxport parameters.


I will tell about the results, thanks again and good bye.

 

[tamhas]

too expensive, also

Penny wise, pound foolish. A small amount per year avoids really expensive issues later ... like what are you going to do when the platform running 9.1C has to be replaced.

 

[ezequiel]

Hello Tamhas, is not exactly like that.

In all those years, if we had pay the maintenance, we would have spend more money that we are planning to spend next year in a Openedge set of licenses.


But that will be next year. Right now, the problem have a relation with "dead server" messages in the .lg file. One server falls, and all the connected stations fall. We are changing a parameter (I can't remember wich one, I'm home, it's saturday night) that will make us to have one server for station. If a server falls, just one station will fall.

Not an ideal solution, but it will reduce the problem, we hope.

 

[tamhas]

It is a strategy that sort of works for some some companies ... don't pay maintenance, put the money in the bank, and then rebuy when it comes to that. There are several problems with this approach. One is that it mean no new versions during that whole period. What have you missed in performance and capabilities by not being able to upgrade. What might you have saved if you had the choice of switching platforms. Another is that it turns a modest annual recurring budget item into a big ticket decision. There are a number of companies who, faced with rebuying the license, have made what are really stupid decisions to do something else ... decisions that, in the long term, not only cost them more out of pocket, but which negatively impact the ability of the business to respond to changing needs.

This is becoming a major issue. It isn't just how well a particular piece of software does what you expect it to do at some point in time ... it is how well that software enables your business to be all that it could be and how quickly it can change when those requirements change. Business today is about this rapid change. Fail to change and you lose.

 

[ezequiel]

Hahahaha, thank you, Tamhas, we didn't expect from you less than being called stupid. The rest of your words is full of expertise, and we appreciate it.

We don't completely agree, but we appreciate it.