I don't need a book, but the only drawback I know of Client/Server is that the Server may lock up and that it's sometimes inconvenient to access for the client. Anything else? Thanks.
I don't need a book, but the only drawback I know of Client/Server is that the Server may lock up and that it's sometimes inconvenient to access for the client. Anything else? Thanks.
computer question... wrote:
I don't need a book, but the only drawback I know of Client/Server is that the Server may lock up and that it's sometimes inconvenient to access for the client. Anything else? Thanks.
Huh? DO you mean desktop application vs Internet? Client/server and internet are nearly the same thing, except there's a fat client in one and a thin client (browser) in the other. On both the server can lock up and both can be inconvenient to access.
A standalone desktop application (such as Word, Excel, etc) isn't dependent on a central server.
Internet applications have the advantage of having all the code in (mostly) one spot. Clients for client/server and desktop applications run the risk of becoming out of date when you have 100's or thousands of desktops to update.
Sorry.... I'm talking about an inhouse PC/LAN server (i.e. contains JD Edwards accounting software), that provides for the accounting department "clients". This versus an online browser application that the clients just URL instead, connecting to an outsourced provider. Far as security/reliability, I'm just trying to understand the pros/cons a little better. Thanks.
Well, the in-house application is completely visible to the pimply faced intern your IT department hired to run it because they won't pay anyone that knows anything. Odds are everyone on whatever web site he hangs out on knows your financials and everyone's salary. Unless you have redundant servers, odds are pretty good you're going to have a multi-day outage at some random point. The good news is the odds are slim some random person from the internet will break into your system. From your query I assume you're not at a large company, so that's the parameters I'm talking about. That and the fact 90% of data leakage comes from someone inside, not outside your company.
The outsourced provider should (or you shouldn't even consider them) have fully redundant facilities with no single point of failure. They will defray the cost of this by running LOTS of clients through this infrastructure. It's likely more reliable that what you'd build yourself, but you will have to trust them to keep your data secure.
Of course I'm writing this at 10:20 at night because I'm waiting on a callback from a network engineer because 22 of the 89 servers in my complex fired a false down alert. Outsourcers aren't infallible. Having been on both sides of the fence I will say that someone whose sole income rides on providing a service that's always available does have a higher financial incentive to follow through than an internal IT department that won't likely get the money because the primary financial motive of the company is producing widgets, not providing IT.
Keith,
That was a great post. I totally appreciate it. But being this is letsrun, I'm going to another thread and call someone an idiot. Thanks again.