I work for a company that has a global call tracking in one database in one
location and serves up the application via Citrix. Works very well. Our
people who use the application are located all over the world. PacRim,
Europe, India, China, Egypt, US, etc. We even have some web apps that we
publish via Citrix and you run the web browser on Citrix. Works very well
when you have a small bandwidth. Easy to deploy, excellent performance.
Jim
"Burton Peltier" <burttemp1REMOVE_THIS_at_bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7sX0b.2391$634.1561_at_fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
> Thanks for the comments/opinions from everyone.
>
> Now it seems there is some (little I hope/think?) discussion on
> consolidation of all the tiers in 1 global location.
>
> I can see where regional data centers make sense and we already have
> achieved this somewhat and are actively moving more toward regional data
> centers.
>
> The newer discussion/idea is to have all servers in 1 location and use the
> 3-tier model as a first choice or use something like Citrix for the
> applications that do not easily fit this model (client/server).
>
> It seems the only way this new idea will work is if just about every
server
> is moved to the 1 global location. For example, logging into a Citrix
server
> that loads a user's profile stored on file server from across the globe
will
> not work. Or, having a client/server model application hitting a global
> location for the database from the other side of the globe will not work
(I
> am guestimating). And, of course, 3-tier model apps would have to have all
> the servers in the same (or close to it) global location.
>
> Anyway, again, any comments/opinions welcome on regional vs. global .
>
> --
> "Burton Peltier" <burttemp1REMOVE_THIS_at_bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:OWD0b.3482$7F2.140_at_fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > Just wondering what others opinions are on this subject...
> >
> > Within our company, there are some who think in-house developed
> applications
> > should be architectured such that there is no dependence on the
underlying
> > database server software - the database server should only do CRUD
> > (create,read,update,delete) processing.
> >
> > This might at first seem sensible to some, I think there are way too
many
> > "gray areas" to say the above should be a "standard" that must be
adhered
> to
> > or have permission to do differently. I am guessing this is some
people's
> > intent.
> >
> > Some people spend way too much effort trying to not "tie" themselves to
1
> > database vendor and don't take advantage of features and functionality
(in
> > Oracle for our company), at a significant loss either by lost
> functionality
> > or performance or "writing their own way". Or, they do things like put
> hints
> > in the SQL to tune and are "tied" anyway.
> >
> > Note: I can see where a software vendor should/has to try and work this
> way.
> > But, this does not seem to make sense for a commercial company like
ours.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Wed Aug 20 2003 - 23:28:02 CDT
