Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!hi-csc!giebelhaus
From: giebelhaus@hi-csc.UUCP (Timothy R. Giebelhaus)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: NLS servers
Message-ID: <403bace5.12c4f@hi-csc.UUCP>
Date: 13 Dec 88 16:17:00 GMT
References: <4014e53a.1837d@apollo.COM> <1730@sol.oakhill.UUCP>
Reply-To: giebelhaus@hi-csc.UUCP (Timothy R. Giebelhaus)
Organization: csdd
Lines: 33

In article <1730@sol.oakhill.UUCP> kirk@sol.UUCP (Kirk Livingston) writes:
>
>What's wrong with this.  If your central server goes down you can
>at least continue to use the software you had purchased.
Who says you have to put you all you NLS servers on the server?
You can place an NLS server on each node you use the software.
This would approach a node locked piece of software.  It would
provide a little more as other nodes could use the software when
the node which had the NLS server on it was not using it.

>But when the disk goes down all of our NLS licensed software 
>would go down with it.  Seriously crippling our work until the
>service man can repair the machine or provide an alternate server.
>No thanks!!
Again, why have only one NLS server?  Spread out you licenses as
much as you like.

>Speed is not the only issue here.  NLS must be tolerant to the
>failure of the server.
As already described, NLS has to be secure else why bother to 
introduce the overhead at all.  If anyone can think of a better
secure scheme, please send in an apr or ucr.

>By the way did anyone at apollo ever ask any of the apollo 
>customers what they would prefer??  From the number of
>complaints so far I doubt it.
Sure, a mass mailing survey went out.  I'll bet most people remember
the survey.
-- 
UUCP: uunet!hi-csc!giebelhaus         UUCP: tim@apollo.uucp
ARPA: hi-csc!giebelhaus@umn-cs.arpa   ARPA: tim@apollo.com
Tim Giebelhaus, Apollo Computer, Regional Software Support Specialist.
My comments and opinions have nothing to do with work.