Peer to Peer Windows 95, But cannot run AREV on Server with Locking (AREV Specific)
At 06 NOV 1997 03:49:27PM Dave Bennett wrote:
I have oher Windows 95 pc mapped to my C driveand locking fine. But since I cannot map a network
drive to my own C: I had no network locking. In Lantastic
or Novell Lite, I would point at my own drive, what
do I do for Win95.
At 07 NOV 1997 05:07AM Charles Schmidling wrote:
E-mail me your address. I have something that might fix your problem.
Charles Schmidling
DATASCAN SYSTEMS, Inc.
cbms@belnet.com
At 07 NOV 1997 11:38AM Steven Danielson wrote:
I would really like to hear the response to this, I
am experiencing the same problem.
Thank You
Steve steve@wi.frontiercomm.net
At 10 NOV 1997 09:15AM Robert Lynch wrote:
I think in the AREV documentation it states that
In order to run AREV in a peer to peer network
the PC on which AREV runs must be treated like
a server. Meaning don't try to access AREV form that PC,
You will have locking problems.
Bob
At 14 NOV 1997 03:11PM Aaron Kaplan wrote:
The solution Charles has is a TSR Microsoft Tech Support wrote for him, about 6 months ago. It was designed to work with RevG's locking syntax, however it should run with ARev. It hooks various interupts and forces a positive responce to the 'are you a network drive' query.
I'd use it with caution. If used incorrectly, it would be worse than not having it at all.
Revelation choose not to implement this for a reason, and when it was implemented, it required a complete re-write of the drivers. If it were just a simple matter of modifying a return flag, it would have been dones years ago.
apk@sprezzatura.com
At 16 NOV 1997 03:46AM Charles Schmidling wrote:
This one gets me: when did we start using the words "server" and "peer to peer" together. For a Rev network to function, I must execute the Rev from a server and access data on the server or other network drive. And I can't expect to lock any stuff I may need to on my own workstation. So I should move it to the server, right?
Folks, this is NOT true peer to peer. This is a Server based network and to believe otherwise is to condone the lie.
True peer to peer networking means that computers operate independently from one another, accessing information from each other as the need arises. Technically, you could distribute data all across the different systems and gather as require. Just because it has become more convenient to store the bulk of that information on one of the systems does not change the original definition.
The original RevG network (once called R/NET) bump disk instructions detailed installations for both types of systems. Workstations would execute from a server. Peer networks required bumping one unit and copying to the other units. Current instructions don't mention this. Since I never got to use my bump disk and knowing what I know now, I'm not sure it would have worked.
The Rev's network methodology is server based. Nothing wrong with this except the fact that it should not be called peer-to-peer. But the true peer networking definition will need to be re-concidered in light of growth of the Information Super highway (yeck!). There will be a day when we will access each others computers from the comfort of our own homes. That's the scary peer to peer.
Just some ruminations from an old-timer
Charles Schmdling
DATASCAN SYSTEMS, Inc.
cbms@belnet.com
At 16 NOV 1997 04:11AM Charles Schmidling wrote:
Aaron's concerns are well founded. I'm not completely comfortable with the idea myself. The TSR short circuits a limitation that was designed into Rev. Either someone thought it important enough to allow the limitation, or it was a low priority item.
All I can say is that my solution seems to work for the application it was intended. I'm okay with that part. But this is a small, easily controlled situation. I even re-wrote my locking routines to minimize network intrusion.
My main worry is the disk write caching that Win95 loves to do. Network I/O is generally not cached but local stuff is. Disabling ALL write caching, though, I feel, is extreme and slows Win95 down in other non-Revelation tasks.
Major crash testing of the routine should be done to test it limitations and effectiveness. Since I don't run a network in house, this is tough. Any volunteers?
Charles Schmdling
DATASCAN SYSTEMS, Inc.
cbms@belnet.com
At 20 NOV 1997 05:45PM Cameron Revelation wrote:
Dave,
The NPP provides peer-to-peer support for Arev 2.02P and later on any byte-range locking network. It costs about $300 if I remember correctly. Give customer service a call at (800)262-4747.
Cameron Purdy
Revelation Software