On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:23:06 GMT, in uk.telecom.broadband , alexd
<look@my.sig> wrote:

I do that over 2Mb and it works just fine already. You don't need
100Mb.

Mark McIntyre
--

Mark McIntyre wrote:

Whilst you seem happy with 2Mb to solve your floppy disk sharing
methodology, real office users need 100Mbit to solve moving databases
and the like around, and time is money.

"7" <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:dHCHf.18821$wl.15133@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
You.

So what you are trying to say is that it's asymmetric. Not DSL at all.

"7" <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:sHQHf.19268$wl.16886@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
Really ?
Is that assumption based on fact, experience or just crap ?

Really? Is that some kind of security idea to move databases off of a server
and shift them around? How novel. I guess just running a low bandwidth query
on a remote properly hosted database is just too old fashioned and simple
then.

I can just imagine how great that will be if NTL provide it...... They can't
get a working balance accross the rest of their shitty shoestring network
yet let alone offer more. Still, will keep trading standards and newsgroups
busy for years.

Alastair wrote:
Tut tut Alastair, you just dropped the ball ADSL & SDSL ( even RADSL)
are all in the same DSL family (& you know it ;-) )

"Kraftee" <kraftee@pleasedon'tspam@kraftee.plus.com> wrote in message
news:43f0c5f1$0$9238$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
Didn't express it too clearly did I <g>

Alastair wrote:
Been a long day hasn't it (well I know mine bloody was, in all senses
of the word, now how do I explain the bill from a customer for
removing bloodstains from a carpet, got to think about that one before
I present it to the Lev.1, I suppose I could say I was working bloody
hard but I don't think he'll believe me).

Mark McIntyre wrote:

How on earth could you possibly know what I want out of a VPN?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
20:30:28 up 19 days, 48 min, 3 users, load average: 1.42, 1.20, 1.11
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK

"Kraftee" <kraftee@pleasedon'tspam@kraftee.plus.com> wrote in message
news:43f0dbb4$0$9227$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
It's been a long year - already!

"Flunkett Clogwheel" <plunket@outofspace.org.com> wrote in message
news:tV1If.30829$BV4.15538@fe03.news.easynews.com. ..
There is a whole industry based on that.
SANs are all about moving the storage about but leaving the database where
it is.
(Silly IMO but people pay lots.)

alexd wrote:

Weeelllll,,, he's sharing out his floppy with windope xp homo edition os
and extendingly applying that result to others naturally.

Flunkett Clogwheel <plunket@outofspace.org.com> wrote:
Security isn't a problem with proper encryption.
Occasionally, you do need data locally, for whatever reasons.
Off-site backup, being able to stick it on a laptop and carry it about,
....

"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43f1e44c$0$3613$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
Who mentioned security?

"Occasionally, you do need data locally, for whatever reasons."
Which would be read only? After all any database worth it salt would not
allow you to change or update data that other people may be accessing or
working on on a server. Unless the idea of locks and protection of the
integrity of the master data is preserveable using this pointless remote
setup.

Flunkett Clogwheel <plunket@outofspace.org.com> wrote:
Depends on the database design.
It may be sensible to merge certain sorts of databases, without
problems.
If it's being used to organise captured data, and there is no problem
with duplicate records, or a clear heirarchy, then it can work well.
Then of course, large-scale locks, where the remote user checks out
large chunks of the database, and locks it.

As an example, imagine a car maintainance database, complete with videos
of repairs.
You'll generally only be consulting and adding to this, not changing,
and simply querying the main server may be a problem if you've got an
unreliable connection.

"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43f3b77a$0$82672$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
"As an example, imagine a car maintainance database, complete with videos
of repairs."

Why would you download this? The database would best point to a link of the
video, not the video itself, therefore the return argument would be text
only. To store the video by blob in the database is wasteful.

"You'll generally only be consulting and adding to this not changing"

In which case a query would be fine. You don't download the entire google
database before you search now, do you.

"simply querying the main server may be a problem if you've got an
unreliable connection."

If it's too unreliable for a query it's got to be positively rank for
downloading the whole database

Flunkett Clogwheel <plunket@outofspace.org.com> wrote:
You download at the office, or at home, and may be working where you
only have a spotty mobile connection.

"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43f73b18$0$82639$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
In which case you would move it on the lan to the laptop and not worry about
the mobile connection in any respect, reflecting the changes when you next
went to the office if the connection was spotty. Thus the argument for 100mb
broadband to move such large database files is irrelevant in this case as
you are only moving small parts anyway. Also NTL broadband, whilst
appauling, is hardly a 'spotty mobile connection', although there are NTL
customers who may not agree....