Re: Database Server Vs. Application Servers - Processing Location - Regional vs. Global

I also like Citrix and it does work great. But, the way we have designed our global environment (currently) is that the login to Citrix loads your "roaming profile". When the profile is stored in a regional file server (like ours), then the load to the other side of the globe can take a while no matter how small the profile is.

So, in our case, the current regional Citrix with regional file servers and with regional database servers works better. But, to just change this to a global database server (and not global other servers) it seems this could cause some potentially major performance problems .

So, if we are going to have global database servers, a global Citrix server would probably work well, but all the other servers (file server too with the profile) would have to be moved to the same area of the globe .

Anyway, then we would be locked into running everything off Citrix or potentially run client/server apps hitting a database on the other side of the globe! - wouldn't this perform poorly? So, any application that is still client/server would have to be able to run in Citrix, which it is my understanding (not a Citrix expert by any means) that not all applications work in Citrix.

-- 
"Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-downwithspammersfamily_at_attbi.net> wrote in message
news:mTX0b.211855$o%2.98386_at_sccrnsc02...


> 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.

> > >

> > > -- 

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>