| **
Hi James No encryption, possibly SSL, ‘heavy’
app with lots of forms. Regards David Sanders Remedy Solution Architect ========================== ARS List Award Winner
2005 Best 3rd party Remedy
Application tel +44 1494 468980 mobile +44 7710 377761 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] web http://www.westoverconsulting.co.uk From: Action Request
System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: David:
If you
are running over a VPN to a central office in the areas that you mentioned and
the number of forms is low or there are not frequent changes, and the users are
connecting over a company provided VPN type connection, then you might be
better off locating the MT servers "over the horizon" and closer to
the overseas offices. Given
that you are looking at 2MB of throughput to each outside location, the problem
may be delay between the MT server and the ARS server and not the amount of
data sent. Given the
amount of information provided, I would go with the DMZ solution and high
encryption between user using SSL 128bit or higher and high encryption between
the ARS server and the MT server through a dedicated port on the inside the
company firewall.
________________________________
From:
Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
David Sanders ** Hi James
Scenario
1 - MT Servers local to ARS, they would be on same LAN as the ARS server and
firewall(s) would be between the end-users browsers and this. ARS---FW---MT
--------------pipe--------------- FW------Users
Scenario
2 - MT Servers local to Users. ARS----FW
---------------pipe---------------- MT---FW---Users
The pipe
would probably be about 2Mb and is clearly the bottleneck. So is it
quicker to send the MT to ARS traffic over the pipe (scenario 2), or the
browser to MT traffic (scenario 1)
Regards
David
Sanders Remedy
Solution Architect ==========================
ARS List
Award Winner 2005 Best 3rd
party Remedy Application
tel +44
1494 468980 mobile
+44 7710 377761 email
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
web http://www.westoverconsulting.co.uk
<http://www.westoverconsulting.co.uk/>
________________________________
From:
Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
McKenzie, James J C-E LCMC HQISEC/L3 Sent:
Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:51 PM
Dsvid: Where
would the MT servers be located? What is the size of the pipe between the
ARS servers and the remoted MT servers? Also, is there a firewall/network
appliance that would be placed between your ARS server and the MT servers? James
McKenzie -----Original
Message----- Hi List I'm
looking for advice on the best architecture to adopt for the Mid-Tier. Say we
decide to have 3 Mid-Tier servers, the questions is, are we better to locate
the MT servers locally to the ARS platform, and transmit the Mid-Tier to client
browser traffic over the WAN, or is it better to locate the MT servers locally
to the users, and transmit the Mid-Tier to ARS traffic over the WAN. My
**guess** is that having the Mid-Tier servers local to the ARS server would
give better performance as I expect the most intensive traffic to be between
the MT servers and ARS, but I have no evidence for this from a real-life
situation. Has anyone compared these types of architecture and discovered
performance differences? Thanks
for any information. David
Sanders _______________________________________________________________________________
__20060125_______________________This
posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This
posting was submitted with HTML in it___ |
Title: RE: Mid-Tier architecture question
- Re: Mid-Tier architecture question David Sanders
- Re: Mid-Tier architecture questi... John Dennis
- Re: Mid-Tier architecture questi... McKenzie, James J C-E LCMC HQISEC/L3
- Re: Mid-Tier architecture qu... David Sanders
- Re: Mid-Tier architectur... Adam Pederson
- Re: Mid-Tier architecture questi... McKenzie, James J C-E LCMC HQISEC/L3
