Vista - Partial Recovery

Hello;

One of my three machines logged in at some point today. The other two are
still stuck.

I am theorizing the following:

-- when the system has been down for a long time, there are more changes to
the offline shares.
-- when the shares reconnect, they have a LARGE number of sync updates for
the server to compare/process. This is probably one of the more expensive
server processes, so the entire server complex gets busy.
-- at a certain point, in an act of self-defence, the server stops accepting
connections so it can catch up.

Add into this that the service has been adding users since microsoft bought
it (including yours truly), but there has been no profit motive to add
servers to handle this additional (non-paying) load.

I'm sure one of the attractive things about this technology -- because it is
based on peer to peer transfer -- was the relatively small amount of server
investment required to make it go. But at peak moments like this, you see
where that theory has limits. THey should use Amazon's EC3 to allow instant
scalability at peak (just kidding, I kid because I love).

I have a really hard time listening to people complain about this.

-- I'm sure MS bought the product to apply the tech somewhere, I doubt they
thought there was a bunch of money in the business model.
-- It's a joy that they offer this for free. I assume that this group is
focused on applying the technology some other way in MS.

It would be great if they could a) keep it up on the weekends, b) have
better information, and c) make some improvements to the application and
infrastructure. But beggars can't be choosers. If you want a business class
infrastructure, be ready to pay a business-class price!

Finally, I point out to the MS people that read this: the fact that people
complain means that this product has value. I would love to hear that
there's a way you can sell ads against this or something and run it like a
real business.

MS

Hi Stark,

First, everything you wrote is speculation--what's the point?

Second, you really like to defend the little guy from the likes of a
behemoth. Maybe you should recalibrate your priorities. Personally, I have
spent many of hundreds of dollars, if not thousands. on MS products. And
many hours on the headaches that are associated with these monopolistic
products. A tiny freebie that MS then seems to offer with minimal respect to
its own installed base of MS customers seems to add insult to injury. But
keep slaying us dragons in protection of the beast.

Hey, it looks like one of my machines just came online!
"Stark" wrote:

If you don't like "monopolistic products," why do you invest your money in
them, much less use them if they cause you headaches? There are lots of
other alternatives.




"Dan" <Dan@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:456C523E-2980-43DE-B90D-5ED022B1559B@xxxxxx

> First, everything you wrote is speculation--what's the point?Hah! My wife tells me the same thing. I don't know. I have the same
problem with the airlines. I always want to know WHY my flight is delayed.
Maybe I just have too much free time....

Along those lines, here's another theory:

They can't specifically predict how long the system will take to come back
up, because they haven't had much outage experience. There have only been
two or three since I started using it. Each one probably had more users than
before. So each one hits new scalability limits on the restart.

If there's any truth to this, the next one will be longer (unless they add
HW).
Yeah, I'm still at 1 of 4 machines logged in. I should go reboot everything
again.

"A" wrote:
"A", I am not going to provide you a lesson in Econ 101. Have a look at how
monopolies function and thrive, in lieu of superior alternatives by, for
example controlling distribution and pricing for essential products, etc.
etc. and you'll gain a better understanding of this very thoroughly-studied
topic. Why do I use MS products? For the same reason that millions and
millions and millions of other people use products that have a monopoly in
light of better alternatives. Monopoly does not require 100% adherence.
They do tend to dominate irrespective of their inferiority.

With a BBA, two masters degrees and a few decades of business experience, I
don't need an education in economics 101.

Nobody's forcing you to use any products you deem inferior. That's your
choice, and it has nothing at all to do with being forced by "monopolies."
Or by "economic necessity."

Whining about that is also your choice, not something monopolies force on
you. Where there are many other viable choices, using a product that you
consider inferior and whining about it is simply a poor choice which you,
and you alone, choose to make.

As Fritz Perls used to say, "**** or get off the pot."


"Dan" <Dan@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BC2CA56D-8B30-49DE-B5FF-72FD6D263146@xxxxxx

"Stark" wrote:
I have been a user of Foldershare for a number of years starting when it was
owned by Byte Taxi I also paid for 5 Professional Licenses. When MS purchased
it I was refunded the unused portion of the License money and still use it at
the Professional version level. (No limit on the # of Libraries or Files) I
run Foldershare on 35 computers in my company and have numerous clients that
use it so I can share my data to them.

Foldershare is very important to me on a daily basis as well as my clients.
This outage has cost me many man hours of labor on my part and other
employees as well as much for some of my customers. The dollar amounts are in
the thousands. I hope this will go away today and all issues will be resolved.

I was very happy paying for Foldershare as it was reliable and did just what
I needed at a reasonable price. It allowed me to assign or remove a license
to a user as needed so it worked great.

I am certainly open to a different solution to the problem if anyone has a
suggestion I would love to look at it.

So MS snaps up Foldershare. Foldershare development ceases and support goes
down the drain (no slight to you, Anton--you don't run MS). Customers limp
along, some with severe adverse consequences, as this message board attests
to. MS does not have the courtesy to inform FS customers of the status of
Foldershare.

And "A" thinks that is just dandy and raising concerns constitutes "whining."

Fine, but I sez back to school with you. Multiple academic degrees and
experience in this instance don't serve you well; you do not exhibit the
presence of common sense nor an understanding of how monopolies function.
Again, I recommend you study econ 101 since I highly doubt your degrees are
close to that field (or are you one of the Chicago boys?). MS behaviour is
not novel nor surprising.

"A" wrote:

Dan, all due respect, but there are other programs out that that do exactly
what FolderShare does, so it's not a "monopoly" by any means. Go look at
BeInSync if you want a commercial tool that's updated and supported. Right
now FolderShare is clearly not the product that you're looking for, and
screaming about it isn't going to change a damn thing.

> Foldershare is very important to me on a daily basis as well as myI rely on FolderShare myself, and it pains me GREATLY when it's not working,
but relying on a free, beta, consumer-geared software service for a 35+
person business? That's a risky proposition at best. :-(