On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Leland Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/22/2010 12:40 PM, Stephen Russell wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Johnson<[email protected]> wrote: >>> Steve: That is why I am asking this group. I want it to be secure. >>> Bandwidth is not a problem. There will only be one user on the system >>> at a time. >> --------------------- >> >> Only one remote user into the network. This should be pretty good. >> The more you bring in the worse it gets in the VPN side of a >> bottleneck >> >> >> > > The amount of bandwidth used over a WAN, (eg internet), by remote > connections is not a question of VPN connections versus something else. > If the network is being hampered because of a lack of bandwidth, the > company might want to look into acquiring more bandwidth. > > You might also look at stateless versus persistent connections. Web > application usually use less bandwidth; because, the connections are not > persistent, (eg a remote user connects to a web server, requests a > webpage, and then disconnects. The web server listening over a certain > port responds to the request for a page, open a connection to the client > sided browser, send the page, and then disconnects. Also, most database > server act in a stateless manner, especially where bandwidth is > limited. Where bandwidth is not an issue, persistent connections are > faster. -------------------
>From Jeff's reply earlier I thought that this is for a Tax preparer in the field to run the software from the office at a clients home or business. WAG there but that is how I read it. >From my experience at my present gig a VPN bottleneck can be huge if someone sets up the VPN to route through the "Office" instead of just connect with it. Or in our case a LOT OF PEOPLE who do this. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer CIMSgts 901.246-0159 cell _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
