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

Comments embedded.
Jim

"Burton Peltier" <burttemp1REMOVE_THIS_at_bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:LY31b.96$g9.49_at_fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
> 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.

Very true. We found that out also and disabled the roaming profile. Otherwise, someone from India with a large roaming profile would take 45 minutes to launch an application. Not good performance.

>
> 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 .
If you don't need to share the data then that is good. In our case we went from 3 call tracking systems and no sharing of data to 1. We give better support with less work.
>
> 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 .
>

Yes. You are correct.

> 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.
>

Yes. You are correct some applications don't run on Citrix. Usually these are 16 bit apps. In a prior life we found running 16 bit telnet sessions bought the server to its knees. However, most applications do run quite well on 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.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Thu Aug 21 2003 - 09:23:32 CDT