"Albert D. Kallal" <kallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:lpLOf.108551$B94.107726@pd7tw3no:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The performance would be much poorer than plain old indirect
>> replication, which sends only the changes, not the whole
>> database.[/color]
>
> Yes, but the overhead of connecting takes a lot of time. Try
> zipping up a 10 meg file....the result is a file that is at least
> 5 times smaller...[/color]
But you CAN'T DO THAT. It breaks replication.
[color=blue]
> in most cases, you can transfer a zipped file in LESS TIME then it
> takes to replicate. Further, with a crappie connection, your file
> either downloads...or does not......[/color]
Indirect replication works the same way. It sends a number of very
small files back and forth. If the synch fails because of a lost
connection, the changes are resent the next time you synch.
Now, if you're talking about DIRECT replication, it's a very
different situation, but the original poster said INDIRECT
replication from the verybeginning.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> You can't do what you're recommending:
>>
>>
http://trigeminal.com/usenet/usenet009.asp?1033
>>
>> ALBERT, PLEASE STOP GIVING ADVICE ABOUT SOMETHING WITH WHICH YOU
>> HAVE NO ACTUAL RELEVANT EXPERIENCE.[/color]
>
> sure you can do the above. You just have to make sure the server
> machine can duplicate the computer name..and path name.....[/color]
You can't connect two computers that have the same name via dialup
networking, Albert.
Emailing a zip file is breaking replication, even if you have a
situation where you can use the machine name/path trick to make Jet
think the file is in the same location. It only works with transfers
via floppy disk, since you can't use a network connection between
two computers with the same name.
[color=blue]
> you likely never heard of vmware? Perhaps you are new to
> computers?
>
> You can most certainly setup an environment where you duplicate
> the machine name, and path names.....[/color]
Well, first off, you can't use RAS to connect the two computers with
an SMB connection, as the original poster described.
Secondly, you made this recommendation of zipping up and
moving/copying replicas without including the absolutely crucial
caveat about faking the machine names/paths. You didn't mention
VMWare or anything else.
[color=blue]
> And, in fact, Vmware has a great contest on right now...you will
> do well to read up on what vmware calls an appliance....
>
>
http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/challenge/
>
> Why is duplication of the path name, and computer name a problem
> with today's virtual technology? (we read about virtual computing
> every day and how hot it is a hot new frontier. I guess you never
> considered this technology. I use virtual pc to duplicate my
> clients path names and environments all the time.[/color]
Well, it's a bad idea, since it breaks SMB networking.
ANd it's mis-using replication.
But you're now cleverly trying to cover up for giving BAD ADVICE.
You didn't mention VMWare or the duplication of machine name/path
when you twice posted the advice to email zipped replicas. This
indicates to me that YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS ILLEGAL, and you only
now have figured out that there is a clever method for implementing
it.
It's a very complicated method, though, and it's *still* not going
to be faster than indirect replication. Secondly, it can't be
scheduled (indirect replication can be).
You gave bad advice, Albert. Admit it and move on.
--
David W. Fenton
http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com
http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ 
