Re: XP remote connect to Win2K PC?
From: Bill Sanderson (Bill_Sanderson_at_msn.com.plugh.org)
Date: 10/16/04
- Next message: Jason: "Re: XP remote connect to Win2K PC?"
- Previous message: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]: "Re: XP remote connect to Win2K PC?"
- In reply to: Jonathan Finney: "Re: XP remote connect to Win2K PC?"
- Next in thread: Jonathan Finney: "Re: XP remote connect to Win2K PC?"
- Reply: Jonathan Finney: "Re: XP remote connect to Win2K PC?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:45:15 -0400
Hmm - let's start over--can you describe the basic thing you are planning to
do from scratch?
My vision so far is that you have a workgroup of two phyically separated (by
the Internet) machines on which you wish to keep a set of files in synch for
some purpose.
These machines don't travel, they'll never be on a direct high-speed
connection with each other--the "network" will be a VPN connection between
them?
Am I close?
(and I'm not sure I know the answer, although I could try it as an
experiment and see how it works.)
"Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
news:416fef02$0$109$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> Thanks again, Bill.
>
> I have read some MS articles on using Offline Files and have also
> downloaded
> and installed the Second Copy trial. The problem with both is that they
> assume that you already have access to the other computer and refer to the
> different locations a if they were connected via a LAN. This is not the
> case and I have no idea how to set this up or where to find help with
> this.
> My ISP was not much help - he was able to show me where to enter the IP
> addresses and port numbers to program my Zyxel router, but wasn't able to
> tell me what they should be.
>
> Since this is obviously a very common need, I assume I must have been
> asking
> the wrong questions because I have seen nothing that begins to cover the
> procedure for setting up the connection in the first place (VPN tunnel?).
>
> Any ideas how I find help on this?
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Finney
>
>
> "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
> news:O7euLcssEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> I've a user who keeps a laptop at home and only brings it to the office
>> to
>> synch every few months. She'd like to use a (1 gig) USB key to do the
>> synching by carrying that back and forth.
>>
>> I'm looking at SC for that functionality. I see that some USB key
>> vendors
>> have (usually extra cost) apps to do this job that are tied to their
>> hardware.
>>
>> It seems to me that the devil is in the details in this kind of an
> app--and
>> I don't have a solid enough feeling for how SC works to be unequivocally
>> positive. Lanwench does have that level of experience, I believe!
>>
>> The strength I see in Offline Files is that they've made it simple--very
>> little user interface--no complicated sets of options to set, etc.
> Because
>> the underlying process is, in fact, rather complex, this can lead to some
>> issues which are hard to manage--although the number of tools needed are
>> quite small--there's a KB article on how to blow away and reestablish the
>> cache if there are issues of corruption with it, and there's a Windows
>> Server 2003 Resource Kit applet that allows for manual control of several
>> crucial details of the cache behavior which is sometimes useful.
>>
>> I haven't seen the data loss issues directly, but I've only a few users
>> using the feature--I have cetainly seen threads here with such issues,
>> but
>> don't have a clear fix on what went wrong. For example, the cache files
> are
>> tied to a serial number for the user in a domain, and if the domain
> changes
>> (as with a neighbor who changed jobs)--the cache becomes inaccessable.
>> He
>> was sure he was OK because he synched carefully before leaving the job,
> but,
>> in fact, the files were inaccessable. I now suspect this could have been
>> fixed with the Resource Kit applet, but I didn't know about that at the
>> time, and he was able to get the old job to send him the files.
>> So--there
>> are "legitimate" causes for the cache becoming inaccessable, and then
> there
>> are the other kind--which I haven't followed the feature in enough depth
> to
>> try to pin down.
>>
>> I like offline files--it is dead simple to use, and the users find it
>> easy
>> to understand. However, if I'd been having data lost issues, I'd go
>> elsewhere quickly, or if I needed more flexibility--as with the USB key
>> transfer system.
>>
>>
>> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
>> news:416ea2a1$0$103$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>> > Thanks for a very comprehensive explanation, Bill.
>> >
>> > I can see that this could be an issue where large amounts of data had
>> > to
>> > be
>> > transferred, but once the initial copy of several GB of data had been
>> > performed, hopefully the relatively small number of files changed
>> > within
> a
>> > day would not present too much of a problem.
>> >
>> > I'm concerned about the instances of data loss mentioned by Lanwench
>> > and
>> > have asked her for more details. Have you heard of similar
>> > occurrences?
>> > If
>> > we're talking about the possibility of files at both ends becoming
>> > damaged,
>> > I'll pay the $30 and go for the SC option. It also sounds like it
>> > might
>> > be
>> > easier to set up and manage with a dedicated application as a front
>> > end.
>> > Would you agree?
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Jonathan Finney
>> >
>> > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
>> > news:eSfvXbTsEHA.2632@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> SMB is Server Message Block, apparently invented by IBM:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.javvin.com/protocolSMB.html
>> >>
>> >> It is what any windows networking implementation has used since time
>> >> immemorial.
>> >>
>> >> The current standard is CIFS which is also mentioned in this
> definition.
>> >>
>> >> VPN is not necessarily slow--the speed depends on the infrastructure
> you
>> > are
>> >> connecting across.
>> >>
>> >> If you have a 100mbps full duplex ethernet, and use a VPN connection
>> > across
>> >> that, for security, the speed difference may be negligable, I suspect,
>> >> but
>> >> haven't tested. There's processor power going into the
>> >> encryption/decryption at both ends, but if more than enough of that is
>> >> available, it shouldn't impact speed. I haven't looked up the details
> of
>> >> the overhead in individual packets--versus unencrypted traffic. I'm
> sure
>> >> there's some.
>> >>
>> >> What I meant by slow is that if you are connecting across the
>> >> Internet,
>> > many
>> >> common connection types these days are not equally fast in both
>> > directions.
>> >> The "A" in ADSL is for assymetric, meaning that the connection is
> faster
>> > in
>> >> one direction than in the other. The same is true for common cable
>> >> connections, as I understand it.
>> >>
>> >> So--the speed of your connection may be limited by the uplink speed at
>> >> the
>> >> site the data is flowing from. Using Remote Desktop, for example,
> speed
>> >> issues are almost unnoticable--because of compression and great care
>> >> bandwidth use. However, when you are using normal networking
>> >> protocols
>> > over
>> >> that same connection and moving large amounts of data--as you may be
>> >> in
>
>> >> doing an initial synch on offline files, the basic link speed is going
> to
>> >> limit how fast things go. If you are lucky, and the source is a
>> >> workplace
>> >> with a large upload speed to the Internet, this may not be a problem.
>> >>
>> >> Many here are accustomed to the speeds that RDP achieves over such
>> >> connections and are startled when they try an actual file transfer or
>> > other
>> >> bulk data movement over the same underlying connection and are bitten
> by
>> > the
>> >> relative speed (or lack thereof!) of the link--so I try to remind
> folks.
>> >>
>> >> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:416d31ac$0$112$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>> >> > Sorry, Bill.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've heard of VPN, but didn't know it was slow. Where can I read
> more
>> >> > about
>> >> > this?
>> >> >
>> >> > What's SMB?
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > Jonathan Finney
>> >> >
>> >> > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
>> >> > news:e7JMGx8rEHA.3728@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
>> >> >> includes
>> >> >> the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux implementations
> of
>> >> >> SMB.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't
>> > what
>> >> > you
>> >> >> have at home.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a
> situation
>> >> > where
>> >> >> you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you can definitely
>> >> >> try
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> out.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the
>> > native
>> >> >> one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both look well
>> >> > designed
>> >> >> to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint about the offline files
>> >> >> feature--I use it mainly with laptop users who grab a machine and
> take
>> > it
>> >> >> off-network for periods of time, though.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>> >> >> >I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
>> >> >> >access
>> >> >> >to
>> >> >> > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home
> PC
>> >> >> > (running XP Pro).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all
> my
>> >> > data
>> >> >> > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set
>> >> >> > of
>> > data
>> >> >> > files at home and sync the files/folders.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect
>> >> >> > that
>> > both
>> >> >> > ends
>> >> >> > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What other options do I have to achieve this?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Jonathan Finney
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
- Next message: Jason: "Re: XP remote connect to Win2K PC?"
- Previous message: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]: "Re: XP remote connect to Win2K PC?"
- In reply to: Jonathan Finney: "Re: XP remote connect to Win2K PC?"
- Next in thread: Jonathan Finney: "Re: XP remote connect to Win2K PC?"
- Reply: Jonathan Finney: "Re: XP remote connect to Win2K PC?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|