Replication versus synchronization (part Trois)
The Partner Forum brought out some great responses.that
don't always make it to the blog. After checking publication rights,
here is an excerpt to give you an idea of what other BP's think of the
possible naming change we have been discussing..
Carol Ann Ogdin gave one of the best overviews I read in the Partner Forum.
You can read all the awesome comments I got back on the other postings
(even Jess Stratton jumped in)......synchronization
is clearly inferior to replication in every way (save complexity of the
system code, which Microsoft has avoided accepting).
In Windows 2K/XP, "Offline synchronization" requires that when
there's any difference between two files, the later is copied over the
older. (Try doing that with your Outlook.pst! Instead of replicating
the three new eMails you have, it has to copy the whole 250 MB!). In
Windows servers, the "synchronization" of domain databases (e.g.,
Active Directory) are, in fact, mostly file copies.
Lotus (and, subsequently, IBM) have invested a lot of money in providing field-level replication, and calling it what it is. Each database is a "replica" of the others, not a "copy." (For example, the internal organization of objects between various replicas are different after replication.).
Now there is other sides saying synchronization
is like PDA's and other devices, that actually move data back and forth.
Matthias Wille had a cool thought on the terms and meanings after
he did a project with Notes and non-Notes data: So,
I'm not convinced that synchronization is inferior to replication. The
two terms refer to different situations, whilst the technology used and
the complexity of it can actually be the same.
Where does that leave this last installment for now? Confused as a user, understood as an admin and loud like many of my comments and partners in the forum.
blog comments powered by Disqus
On Thursday, February 2nd, 2006 by Chris Miller
