if you need to use the WAN legs, then it may not be able to support the
application at all - even if it runs on the separate PCs. This type of thing
needs a very different architecture again.
Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary [mailto:glablj@...]
Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2003 10:39 AM
To: ib-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ib-support] Re: General Multi-User Architecture Question

--- In ib-support@yahoogroups.com, "Alan McDonald" <alan@m...> wrote:
> I remember that the first win3.11 network setup I used maintained
one copy
> of win3.11 on the server and all users would run this single copy
(less
> client configs on the client side). So the setup is not impossible.
But I
> agree it is not my norm nor is it the norm recommended to me.
> When I did my first C/S application, cached updates were the only
way to go,
> everyone saying that it was imperative to keep network traffic to a
minimum.
> On the other hand we have Jason Wharton (IBObjects components for
IB) who
> has always, in my memory, argued that cached updates are not good
> architecture especially where a decent LAN infrastructure is
available
> because there is a far more important need to keep transaction
turning over
> and work constantly committing. I agree with this philosophy and
use his
> components to this end.
>
> If the application were parcelled up into small modules and the
initial
> exectuable were small and use of other modules was infrequent, then
I might
> (only might) be tempted into this setup. A 6.5Mb exectuable is, as
you say,
> quite large to have to transfer everytime someon starts their
application.
> If they close and reopen thru the day, then the LAN will suffer as
well as
> each user from unwarranted traffic. Remember a trasnfer of this
type is not
> throttled so the LAN would need to be faultlessly 100Mbits/s to
perform
> without frustration in the first instance. On the other hand, it
may make
> updating the application easier and faster for the developer.
>
> Bottom line: I would question the setup you have been given, and
listen to
> the arguments presented for it, then test the application startup
and any
> impact on your network as a result.
>
> Alan
>

Thank you, Alan.

As you correctly point out, the app will have to load across the wire
every time it is loaded. The problem I have with that is our target
environment: a mix of 100 MBps, 10 Mbps and WAN. The WAN can be as
slow as dial-up. So loading the app across the WAN will simply not be
a workable solution. There may be a few Gigabit backbones in the mix
too, but those are by far the exception. The norm is a simple
Workgroup LAN, built on less than top-of-the-line PCs, with one of
the PCs acting as a server. We simply have no control over that
hopeless situation, so I must insist that it be redesigned to keep
the binaries on the local machines.

Helen Borrie had some excellent clarification to my simplistic
understanding of InterBase implementations in a multi-teer design and
configuration. All of this information will be taken back to our
developers for their evaluation and comment. Of course, I will not
use anyone's name ... I don't want to start a war between our
developers and this very helpful group, I just want to get the
doggone thing fixed before our customers see it. :-)

Thanks again! Very helpful insight...

-Gary




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/