The only drawback to this I can think of offhand is that you become
dependent upon your communication link, another possible point of failure.
If your remote sites cannot be down, then I think you have to lean toward
having the system on site, which in turn allows different sites to back
each other up (an advantage).  Otherwise, I completely agree with
everything Wirt says here.

John Lee
Vaske Computer Solutions

At 12:55 PM 1/14/2000 EST, Wirt Atmar wrote:

>Given the quality of the internet -- and the quality that's coming -- I would
>think that all of the dominoes now fall in favor of having one large,
>centralized HP3000, with remote users connected either directly through the
>internet or through VPNs.
>
>System management will be enormously easier when you have to manage only one
>site rather than a half dozen -- and that very directly affects costs.
>Further, there is far less risk (and much less complexity) in a single
>machine solution than there is a multiple-machine architecture -- and that
>too very directly affects costs. There are no worries about synchronization
>of backups or their reliable executions.
>
>One large machine also allows you enormously greater flexibility to establish
>new locations and new manufacturing sites, even if only temporarily for a
>matter of a few days. Nowadays, to establish a remote location, all you need
>do is pull a trailer up to a construction site, find a phone line, and telnet
>back in the central office. In just a very few minutes, you can put a remote
>office anywhere on the planet -- and that too very directly affects costs.
>
>And one large machine very much simplifies user training and remote
>responsibilities -- and that too very directly affects costs.
>
>In essence, when you run one large machine, you become your own ASP
>(application service provider). It's the way the world is going. I have, for
>some time now, believed that it is the way that we should be going too.
>
>Wirt Atmar
>
>