remote server only used for dropboxes. Is it possible ?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

cemopolat@gmail.com - 26 Dec 2006 20:37 GMT

Hi,

As far as I understand from my readings (3 days) remote server needs to
have a synchronizer either with internet or indirect synchronization.

I can't really understand why don't we just have dropboxes (with UNC
paths) on the remote server (RemSrv) and each synchronizers running
locally in location A and location B and so on.

Am I missing something ? If A has a dropbox on RemSvr and B, C and
others know that why can't they just exchange data ? Or can they ?

thanks in advance

cemo

Reply to this Message

David W. Fenton - 27 Dec 2006 23:10 GMT

> As far as I understand from my readings (3 days) remote server
> needs to have a synchronizer either with internet or indirect
> synchronization.

To use indirect or Internet replication, yes. The machines on both
ends of an indirect or Internet synch need to be running the
synchronizer because it's what monitors the local dropbox and
applies the changes, and then sends messages to the other dropbox.

> I can't really understand why don't we just have dropboxes (with
> UNC paths) on the remote server (RemSrv) and each synchronizers
> running locally in location A and location B and so on.

Because the synchronizer runs locally to the replicas it is
managing. And putting the dropbox on a remote computer gives you all
the dangers of a direct synch, as it has to open the message files
across the slow and unreliable network that caused you to not use
direct replication in the first place.

> Am I missing something ? If A has a dropbox on RemSvr and B, C and
> others know that why can't they just exchange data ? Or can they ?

They can, but it's dangerous -- you could lose data or damage your
local replica.

Signature

David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Reply to this Message

cemopolat@gmail.com - 27 Dec 2006 23:30 GMT

> Because the synchronizer runs locally to the replicas it is
> managing. And putting the dropbox on a remote computer gives you all
> the dangers of a direct synch, as it has to open the message files
> across the slow and unreliable network that caused you to not use
> direct replication in the first place.

I thought the message files would be very small since I don't have any
experience with replication. Thanks for correcting this.

best regards

cemo

Reply to this Message

David W. Fenton - 28 Dec 2006 02:29 GMT

>> Because the synchronizer runs locally to the replicas it is
>> managing. And putting the dropbox on a remote computer gives you
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I thought the message files would be very small since I don't have
> any experience with replication. Thanks for correcting this.

There are two types of files:

1. message files, which communicate commands, states and metadata
between the synchronizers, AND

2. MDB files with the actual data.

It's the latter that are a problem, as they are opened in place in
the dropbox and applied to the replica they are intended for. If
that is done across the wire, they could be corrupted and possibly
cause irreparable damage to the local replica.

There are no shortcuts to Jet replication -- you just have to use
the documented methods. When you do, it works extremely well.

Signature

David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Reply to this Message