05240438.txt 24-May-00 Subject: thin client From: "Yves" I need to use a distant client with (ISDN) with Netware Is anybody has experience. 1) using adavantageserver 2) using thin client ( pcanywhere ... ) TIA Yves Subject: Re: thin client From: "Jean-Paul Bleau" Yves, I use both Advantage Server and Terminal Server from Microsoft. We used PC-Anywhere before and it is now replaced by MS-Terminal Server, which is much faster and require only one server for many connections. PC-Anywhere was keeping an internal PC from being used while connected and allowed only one connection at a time per PC. Using only Advantage Server can work with the client software on the remote, but on connections at or under 56k it is still slower then processing on the server. On VPN over that speed, it is fully workable, as Advantage reduce a lot of the traffic over the wire. HTH, Jean-Paul Bleau Ordinateurs Laval http://www.FertiSoft.com Subject: Re: thin client From: paulb007@aol.com (PaulB007) Jean-Paul, Interesting, would you please expand on the performance differences between MS-Terminal Server and PC-Anywhere. Are you referring to the GUI part of the performance? Or is the data processing part also faster. Our apps use Avantage Server and we also use PC-Anywhere for support and training. PC-Anywhere's GUI seems slow. Thanks in advance, Paul Bartlett Subject: Re: thin client From: "Jean-Paul Bleau" Paul, We were using PC-Anywhere to connect Doctors from their home to the hospital. It was working fine, but it always need one machine on both ends. With Terminal Server, you just install a good server (Windows 2000) with a lot of memory and you can easily run multiple connections on this same server. Also, you could connect via the Internet and save a lot on communication. Differences between PC-Anywhere and Terminal server were on th GUI part. Terminal server is much more efficient to communicate screens output from the host to the remote. Instead of bitmaps like PC-A, it uses commands to transmit GUI like dialogs, etc. You can really see a good difference in screen drawing speed. NOW. The funny part... The processing speed is all on the server. You need speed, you increase the server power. On the client side, no more hassle with the CPU types or even the O/S. If it can connect to Terminal server, it can run your application. I have seen handheld like Compaq Aero 8000 run a full blown Windows application at the same speed then a P3 CPU would. So you install your apps only once (on the server) if it runs ok, it will for all the clients.... You don't have to worry about memory on the client machine. That's the way to go. I will always use this technology in the future. This is much easier to manage. You can run your apps from the Internet... etc. Now, pricing. It is not very much expensive. Windows 2000 comes with Terminal server built in. You just need the client licenses (around $200). You use it for network maintenance only, no need for a specific license. If you buy PC-Anyewhere, it won't be much less then that and you still need to maintain more and to use internal machines for every communication. Try it if you're MSDN, it's there. Or buy a small Windows 2000 server and test it. Jean-Paul Bleau Ordinateurs Laval http://www.FertiSoft.com Subject: Re: thin client From: Jean-Marie Berthiaume <#jiembe@#videotron.ca> Qu'en est-il de la securite du serveur? What about security? -- Jean-Marie Berthiaume Montreal, Quebec Attention. Enlever les # pour me rejoindre Please erase the # to reply : (jiembe@videotron.ca) Subject: Re: thin client From: "Jean-Paul Bleau" Sorry Jean-Marie, I was out of town... La securite ??? It can pass via your firewall. You can set it up. Also, you really are authenticated as a Windows User, you have to login and then you have your normal user security too. Jean-Paul Bleau Ordinateurs Laval http://www.FertiSoft.com Subject: Re: thin client From: "Yves" I have no choice. Server is Netware and only one PC is distant. and I dont want to change anything in my VO appli (progiciel) it is AS IS Using TS is not possible (cost to expensive) and my client prefer linux So I see you have experience on pcanywhere. Is this easy solution ? I think it need 2 PC one as local client connected to the distant client. Is it possible with ISDN ? Is it simple to install ? does it need some change in appli ? TIA Yves Subject: Re: thin client From: "Eric Hourant" Yves, We often use PcAnywhere for telesupport for our Vo applications. Another way is to get connected via RAS on your NT workstation. With RAS, you just have to make your program point to the correct file location. With an ISDN line the speed is correct. You can even use both channels but the cost will be higher. If you cannot work with TS, this is a good solution. Depending of your phone provider and your budget, you could also investigate in a permanent connection. I guess you are located in Europe where the communication prices are very expensive. So if you need to stay connected more than 4 hours a day, the permanent line is the way to follow. HTH Eric Subject: Re: thin client From: nswong@maxis.net.my (Wong) Hi Yves, Bellow are an old posting from me, it may help you on your decision making. Regards, Wong Hi Stephane, Even we can adjust package and window size for TCP/IP protocol to optimize data through put, the solution still is reduce the raw data pass through the network. For access data from a local harddisk, file will treat as a character string(or stream of data). When we seek for a record, index file will be read by a cluster basic to perform tree search. After retreive record number, the particular record will be read by a cluster basic. All this will same as performing a cC:=SUBSTR(?.dbf,nS,nC) or cC:=SUBSTR(?.ntx,nS,nC). The cC is the cluster read to memory. Access data from a file server(LAN/WAN) same as about, but unit is measure by package. Try compare with 33mega byte per second (Ultra DMA Mode 2) harddisk through put to 10mega bit through put(LAN) and 33.6kilo bit through put(WAN), we will see where are the problem is. Database server will retrieve data and return the data set that matching selection criteria only, even for a single record this will avoid passing over index file's data. Process server will retreave data and process it all at server site and return the result only. Terminal login will get keyboard input and return screen output, all thing are done at server site, client just doing keyboard capturing and screen update only. Impliment file server under WAN or large data under LAN are not practical due to we have no way to control data of index file pass through, and cache/buffer will not work for network data, and high band width network are so expensive. Using database server like ADS(Advantage Database Server) or through ODBC when doing inquiry/report/processing will need high skill programmers to reduce data pass over to acheive satifactory response time. E.g. when browing whole company employee data, we should request for a screen full of data only instead of really request the data for all employee. Terminal login(or PC environment call remote control) using PcAnywhere, or Citrix MetaFrame on top of WTS(Windows Terminal Server) WinFrame will overload the server but is easiest way to acheive satifactory response time. Implement process server (SOCKET, RPC, DCOM, ADO... ) is a real solution under WAN or large data under LAN, since when a server been overloaded, we can add another server to distribute the workload. We can even run a process at NT, and using .dbf record or text file as a semaphore to communicate. For your case I think now you should use PcAnywhere and spool report to a file at server site, later using a viewer to view or sent it to printer. Regards, Wong Subject: Re: thin client From: F.Eggenberger Hi Ives a) PcAnywhere a good solution for remote support. You have almost full control over the host-system (rebooting, callback to remote stations depending on passwords...) If you have to transmit big files periodically, the built-in cache mechanism allows incredible speed rates (since only the modified data within a file is transmitted) b) TCP/IP via router even with Advantage Server and locally stored EXE a painful experience. We had to change to Win Terminal Server, which is very stable now (but as you say not inexpensive) c) VncServer/VncViewer Very stable and efficient solution, available on different platforms. If you have to transmit files, you define a network drive as you would on a local network (NET USE ....) and use the COPY command in the DOS-box or use the explorer. Best of all: It's free! Check http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/ for detailed information and for download Have a nice day. Florian Eggenberger PROFICON AG Triesen, Liechtenstein Subject: Re: thin client From: "Yves" thanks but I dont need tranfert or remote support my config is Netware, PCs in LAN and only one PC distant. PC distant is client and use database like other PCs Is pcAnywhere can be use to make PC as thin client. appli exe is executed in Server and PC used as terminal. ? TIA Subject: Re: thin client From: "Jean-Paul Bleau" Yves, In your case, PC-Anywhere will be good. Just dedicate a machine in the office and make it a host. If it is accessed from any connection (RAS, Internet, etc.), it will do what you need. The EXE will run on the host machine and only screens will be transmitted to the remote. I had a lot of success with this setup. I moved to Terminal server because it's better, but PC-Anywhere is still a very good solution. HTH, Jean-Paul Bleau Ordinateurs Laval http://www.FertiSoft.com Subject: Re: thin client From: "Yves" Thanks I'll propose that to my client