Windows 2000 Server SP4 ASP.NET 1.1/2.0

[chicken butt]

Hi -

I am trying to move some of my web apps from my development machine
running XP PRO SP2 to one of our Windows 2000 server boxes. I have
created a new site for each of the apps and am using Host Headers to
differentiate between them all.

In IIS, if I redirect to another server running Windows 2003 Server,
the 2.0 applications work very well.

All .htm, .html, .asp and 1.1 .aspx files work correctly on the local
box. There has been no performance degradation that I can see so far.
However, my 2.0 apps will not run at all on the local box.

When I try to run the apps I receive the error: Failed to map the path
'/App_GlobalResources'.

I have gone into the Home Directory tab to make sure that there was not
an extra '\'. I have done a search and the /App_GlobalResouces folder
is listed at:

[WINNT]\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50215\ASP.NETWebAdminFiles

I have googled using:

Failed to map the path '/App_GlobalResources'.

as a search string but the results are questions, both on the web and
the groups.

I have gone to msdn and searched but have not come up with anything
other than the definition of the directory.

Could you someone please point me in the right direction?

 

[chicken butt]

I have decided to do the following. Use the Windows 2000 box to host
the apps and then redirect them to the Windows 2003 box. It seems to
be the only way that I can get them to work. For various reasons, we
are only able to use 1 public IP.

I have a follow up question.

I am trying to the use the treeview from ASP.NET 2.0 but the
performance seems to be terrible. I am pulling from an .xml file with
about 200 attributes. The performance is fine when none of the
'folders' are open but when the user starts to drill down the
performance is very bad.
A cursory performance test (i.e. looking at my watch) shows that even
when attributes with the same amount of attributes underneath are
opened the performance is not degraded in a linear fashion.

Does anyone know of anything that I can do to try and help out the
performance of the treeview? I thought that perhaps the issues
depended on .xml file being on the disk and the disk had to be accessed
each time the page is loaded. Is this a possible issue? Would it be
quicker if I loaded the tree from an database and cached what I was
storing?

Thanks,

Jamie

 

[chicken butt]

I have decided to do the following. Use the Windows 2000 box to host
the apps and then redirect them to the Windows 2003 box. It seems to
be the only way that I can get them to work. For various reasons, we
are only able to use 1 public IP.

I have a follow up question.

I am trying to the use the treeview from ASP.NET 2.0 but the
performance seems to be terrible. I am pulling from an .xml file with
about 200 attributes. The performance is fine when none of the
'folders' are open but when the user starts to drill down the
performance is very bad.
A cursory performance test (i.e. looking at my watch) shows that even
when attributes with the same amount of attributes underneath are
opened the performance is not degraded in a linear fashion.

Does anyone know of anything that I can do to try and help out the
performance of the treeview? I thought that perhaps the issues
depended on .xml file being on the disk and the disk had to be accessed
each time the page is loaded. Is this a possible issue? Would it be
quicker if I loaded the tree from an database and cached what I was
storing?

Thanks,

Jamie

 

[chicken butt]

I have decided to do the following. Use the Windows 2000 box to host
the apps and then redirect them to the Windows 2003 box. It seems to
be the only way that I can get them to work. For various reasons, we
are only able to use 1 public IP.


I have a follow up question.


I am trying to the use the treeview from ASP.NET 2.0 but the
performance seems to be terrible. I am pulling from an .xml file with
about 200 elements. The performance is fine when none of the
'folders' are open but when the user starts to drill down the
performance is very bad.
A cursory performance test (i.e. looking at my watch) shows that even
when elements with the same amount of elements underneath are
opened the performance is not degraded in a linear fashion.


Does anyone know of anything that I can do to try and help out the
performance of the treeview? I thought that perhaps the issues
depended on .xml file being on the disk and the disk had to be accessed

each time the page is loaded. Is this a possible issue? Would it be
quicker if I loaded the tree from an database and cached what I was
storing?


Thanks,


Jamie