My words of advice

I am implementing a three-tier solution. However, verify your total round-trip time before you launch. This is easy to do with some benchmarks.

Lastly, consider a caching scheme on the client that allows read-only rows or infrequently updated rows to live persistently on the client. Every modern application has usually a large body of intransient, reference data. Allow this to be cached if possible.

My 2 senses.

-Lane

Ceferino L. Rivera Jr. wrote:

> I am trying to come up with a client/server architecture that is very
> thin on the client side. Based on the research that I have done, a
> three-tier configuration should work. The first tier is the users
> machine that is used to access the application. The second-tier is an
> application server (where the application resides) and the third tier is
> the Oracle database server. Based on this configuration, I will not be
> installing anything on the users windows 95 machine. I will have a
> Windows NT machine with Developer/2000 server (32 concurrent users) and
> the Oracle server residing in my big Unix machine talking through
> SQl*Net.
>
> Is there anyone out there that has implemented three-tier configuration
> that can comment on my proposed architecture?
>
> Is this the best? What about performance compared to two-tier? I know
> it's not the cheapest but it helps in maintenance support since you only
> have to install one copy of the application in the application server NT
> machine (as compared to 32 installs on 32 users machine using two-tier).
>
> Anyone with three-tier experience, please reply. Thanks in advance.

--
Lane Sharman
"Put those together less bad, but the cage less fun."
Hobbes