I really appreciate you taking the time to clarify this, Christof! It
makes sense that the protocol would need to support record-locking and
concurrent access. Sounds like a great recipe for corrupted data. And
yes, the latency is a huge issue. Sounds like unless the files are
really small and the number of concurrent users is small, it's a really
bad idea. Crazy even!
Thanks again.
Mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Crazy?
From: Christof Wollenhaupt <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: 10/16/2012 7:56 PM
What if someone were to set up a Windows share drive from a Cloud drive
service...like Rackspace offers?
Would that file share source be
a) acceptable to Foxpro for file locks, buffers, etc
b) prone to index corruption
c) speedy enough to serve the purpose?
I've done a session on this topic a while ago... The only protocol that
supports record locking and concurrent access is SMB/CIFS. That's an
non-encrypted protocol that needs to be supplemented by a VPN channel,
whatever sort of. What's killing the whole thing, though, is the increase
in latency. You go from <1 ms on a local LAN to over 30 ms (and that's a
good connection). Even if the bandwidth is high (like my 100 MBit
connection at home), it's still at least 30 times slower than a local
network drive with the same transfer speed (100 MBit LAN).
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
