Re: client-server

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:02:00 UTC, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lorraine 
docherty) wrote:

> "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:58:29 UTC, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (cmee) wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm sorry I know this is very basic but if someone can answer this
> > > then they will help me with my course.  What is a client-server?
> > 
> >   The "client-server model" or a "client-server conversation or
> > relationship" generally implies how two or more entities 
> > communicate together.  In this case, you have a "client" and a
> > "server".  The server provides some service to clients.  Clients
> > ask the server to help them do something.  The concept is
> > ancient, dating back to the beginnings of hardware and software.
> > Its almost a useless buzzword when used by most people.
> > 
> >   Contrast this with the "peer-to-peer model".  Generally
> > a peer functions as both client and server.  Peers help
> > each other out in performing some task.
> > 
> >   A good example might be ftp, the File Transfer Protocol.
> 
> david you seem to be very knowlegable on computer equipment,
> hardware/software.  Would you know anything about WANs, why are they
> slower than LANs i mean in this day and age dont you thing that
> technology should more ( i dont know the word im looking for)anyway if
> you can help on that i would be gtateful

  Hello Lorraine,

  I'll take a stab at this.  LAN stands for Local Area Network.
WAN stands for Wide Area Network.  I won't state that all WANs
are slower than LANs, but the generalization is probably true.

  At the simplest level, a WAN could be though of as a much larger
group of LANs.  There are probably routers, servers, gateways,
and other devices hidden in the network that we don't see but
play very important roles.

  The time it takes a given message to go from Point A to Point B
can be the sum of all the legs between these systems.  In general
there are more legs in a larger network and certainly the possiblity
of more paths to get from A to B.  There may also be bottlenecks
in the larger network due to increased sharing of legs.

  So, if WANs are just bigger networks than LANs, and contain more
nodes and paths for traffic to follow, the slower or more latent
conversation paths must have lower capacity, more competition
for bandwith, and so on across some of the legs.

  So, a WAN from New York to London may be composed of different
technologies than say from your office to mine.  However,
its the network capacity and activity between us that matters.
100Mbs Ethernet between you an I may be pretty good.  But if
the people conversing between New York and London have an
80Gbs Fiber Link, they might just have the winning combination.

  David