On May 2, 6:46 am, Todd C <T...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> There is also a calculation I have used to justify to a small organization
> that a server based network is more efficient to manage than a peer-to-peer.
>
> In a P2P, you count the number of 'network shares' to be created as
> N * (N-1)
>
> Where N is the number of computers on the network.
>
> So with 3 computers you have
> 3 * (3 -1) = 6.
>
> With 10, you have 90, with 100, you have 9,900, etc.
>
> With NS and a network of only 10 machines, it's a lot easier to set up 10
> Event Providers and 10 subscriptions than manage 99 P2P communication
> channels.
>
> Just my thoughts on it ...
> --
> Todd C
>
>
>
> "CD" wrote:
> > Hello Joe,
>
> > Thank you for your reply.
>
> > I am using a custom WCF (Windows Communication Foundation) Delivery
> > channel, which allows me to send the notices to clients via callback.
>
> > Could you please clarify the followins statement?
> > > I would thing that overall efficiency would increase in centralized
> > > approach since with each new computer added to the peer network, you
> > > logarithmically increase the number of subscriptions, etc.
> > If I assume that asume that the "computer" you refer above is another
> > peer and that all clients would also have to subscribe to that new
> > peer, then I woud think that the number of subscriptions would
> > increase linearly (times a constant, which is the number of
> > subscribers). How do you get the logarithmic increase?
>
> > Cheers
> > CS
>
> > On Apr 25, 4:30 am, Joe Webb <j...@webbtechsolutions.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:22:43 -0700, CD wrote:
> > > > Hello All,
>
> > > > I am pretty sure that some of you may have faced a similar dilema...
>
> > > > We use a peer-to-peernotificationframework in our system and have
> > > > been considering replacing it with SSNS. I have some experience with
> > > > SSNS but, in this particular case, have my doubts about whether it
> > > > would be a good approach due to the nature of the problem.
>
> > > > The main problem is the fact that in a peer-to-peer architecture the
> > > > notice provider (which also is the one generating the event) will
> > > > only send the notice when it has a corresponding susbciber.
>
> > > > If we centralize thenotificationsystem using SSNS, every notice from
> > > > such peers would have to be forwarded to SSNS. Other components would
> > > > need to subscribe with SSNS to receive notices.
>
> > > > This may be a problem if one (or some) of these event providers is
> > > > VERY chatty. In this case, it could clog the network while forwarding
> > > > the events to SSNS. This is not a problem in a peer-to-peer scenario,
> > > > since the traffic would not exist (of course, unless some component
> > > > subscribes to all events from that provider!)
>
> > > > What parameters would you consider in this comparison?
>
> > > > What would be the limiting factors of using SSNS?
>
> > > > I would appreciate to hear your thoughts in this scenario.
>
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > CD
> > > > We use a peer-to-peernotificationframework in our system and have
> > > > been considering replacing it with SSNS. I have some experience with
> > > > SSNS but, in this particular case, have my doubts about whether it
> > > > would be a good approach due to the nature of the problem.
>
> > > SSNS is a great tool and can be very, very useful in the right situations.
> > > But it is a wise man who knows that a great tool in one scenario is an
> > > awful tool in another.
>
> > > > If we centralize thenotificationsystem using SSNS, every notice from
> > > > such peers would have to be forwarded to SSNS. Other components would
> > > > need to subscribe with SSNS to receive notices.
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > > > This may be a problem if one (or some) of these event providers is
> > > > VERY chatty. In this case, it could clog the network while forwarding
> > > > the events to SSNS. This is not a problem in a peer-to-peer scenario,
> > > > since the traffic would not exist (of course, unless some component
> > > > subscribes to all events from that provider!)
>
> > > This depends on the event provider you implement. If you use the built-in
> > > SQL Server event provider, SSNS will essentially poll the remote database
> > > on a periodic basis looking for new events to consume. You can also create
> > > your own custom event providers.
>
> > > I would thing that overall efficiency would increase in centralized
> > > approach since with each new computer added to the peer network, you
> > > logarithmically increase the number of subscriptions, etc.
>
> > > SSNS is very good at what it does. Sometimes however people want it to do
> > > things outside its normal scope. For example, some people would want to
> > > use to notify users when the web page they are looking at needs to be
> > > refreshed. That's not a good fit for SSNS, the subscription changes far
> > > too frequently (in most cases). It's better at subscriptions that are
> > > somewhat relatively static.
>
> > > HTH...
>
> > > Joe
>
> > > --
> > > Joe Webb
> > > SQL Server MVPhttp://www.sqlns.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -