Recursive database synch?
- AdrianLP-p40
- Member
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:29 pm
- Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Recursive database synch?
[edit]Hrmm, I didn't mean "recursive"[/edit]
I've noticed that doing send/receive from MLS gets progressively slower as the weeks/years pass by. With the original initial install it was very fast. Each week thereafter it has gotten progressively slower to send/receive changes, even when the amount of changes in a given week should be less than previous.
Does anyone know if MLS synchronizes its data with church HQ by pushing its entire DB back to church HQ?
I've noticed that doing send/receive from MLS gets progressively slower as the weeks/years pass by. With the original initial install it was very fast. Each week thereafter it has gotten progressively slower to send/receive changes, even when the amount of changes in a given week should be less than previous.
Does anyone know if MLS synchronizes its data with church HQ by pushing its entire DB back to church HQ?
- mkmurray
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
- Location: Utah
- Contact:
- AdrianLP-p40
- Member
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:29 pm
- Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
- mkmurray
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
- Location: Utah
- Contact:
Yes, agreed my comment was out of line.AdrianLP wrote:Its an obervation across an entire district, nothing more.
You should not make assumptions about those whose role yours is to moderate
I also ask you not be so assuming and negative about the development practices and technologies currently in use at the Church. There are many things you are making assumptions about that you have no clue how they are run at the Church or why the original technology was chosen. From experience, the standard set of Open Source technologies do not solve all of the world's problems. There are proprietary technologies that sometimes are the best fit.
By the way, this thread is probably not the best example of what I am talking about. Many of your posts in other threads are. One of the guidelines of the thread is to avoid argument just for the sake of argument; I'm afraid some of your comments have been borderline.
- AdrianLP-p40
- Member
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:29 pm
- Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
- AdrianLP-p40
- Member
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:29 pm
- Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
It was meant as constructive.mkmurray wrote:I also ask you not be so assuming and negative about the development practices and technologies currently in use at the Church.
And, this is *how* I talk and *am* in real life. Perhaps that alone will keep me out of heaven. I'm sure it will make for an interesting debate on pre-condemnation one day after death
- mkmurray
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
- Location: Utah
- Contact:
Well, it is my responsibility to interpret. If I am misinterpreting, I apologize.AdrianLP wrote:If that is how you wish to interpret it.
Its certainly not my intention.
I just ask that you be cautious. I feel your points can be made in more of a constructive fashion; we'd like to promote discussion and stray away from argument.
Thank you.
- AdrianLP-p40
- Member
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:29 pm
- Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
We all have to do what we have to do.mkmurray wrote:Well, it is my responsibility to interpret. If I am misinterpreting, I apologize.
Probably. I just personally don't know how though. I tend to be direct in all dealings, and much prefer that people do the same to me (I think its more honest, and lends itself to better and clearer communication).mkmurray wrote:I just ask that you be cautious. I feel your points can be made in more of a constructive fashion;
- AdrianLP-p40
- Member
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:29 pm
- Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
- childsdj
- Member
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:51 am
One possibility could be the anti virus program. If you are running the desktop 5.5 with Symantec as the anti virus/firewall, it could be that the virus definitions are out of date. When MLS connects to CHQ, a portion of the bandwidth is opened to allow for Symantec to get the latest virus definitions. If it is up to date, this process shuts down and the connection is then fully dedicated to MLS transmissions.
We didn't have as robust of an anti virus package a few years ago, so this may be one cause of the slowness. I would encourage anyone that is slow to have their stake technolgy specialist download the most recent virus definitions from mls.lds.org every quarter if possible and apply them to the MLS machines.
We didn't have as robust of an anti virus package a few years ago, so this may be one cause of the slowness. I would encourage anyone that is slow to have their stake technolgy specialist download the most recent virus definitions from mls.lds.org every quarter if possible and apply them to the MLS machines.