Kilostream vs ADSL

Kilostream vs ADSL

Didn't find your answer?

I am considering upgrading the existing kilostream link between our main office and one of the branch offices. This has become necessary due to the increased data traffic caused by expansion of the branch office and enhancements to the practice management software used by the firm. It is now taking upwards of a minute for staff in the branch office to access client ledger balances, for example.

I've spoken to lots of telecoms suppliers about the options, and some have mentioned ADSL, which seems to be cheaper but I have reservations about the practical implications. One worry centres on the fact that ADSL is a shared/contended circuit.

Has anyone tried using ADSL in a similar circumstance? Does anyone foresee any possible benifts to ADSL, apart from the price?

NB: I have confirmed that ADSL is available at each end of the link.
Amanda Fairclough

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By AnonymousUser
08th Feb 2002 18:05

Look for the simple answer first
In general, ADSL is not an appropriate technology for the business user. The headline performance increase vs Cost is initially attractive however, the performance of ADSL is indeterminate and can be slower than leased circuits. We have done much work with a major highstreet retailer and piloted ADSL into 20 branches, the project was not deemed to be a success and was terminated.
The Kilostream circuits will doubtless be terminated with routers with X.21 interfaces. These will need to be replaced to ones presenting an ADSL port, thus mitigating the cost savings.
MS Terminal Server would be a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Terminal Server (Citrix is better over wide area connections) requires signifiant initial investment and planning. The on-going costs are generally lower but this is not a solution.
There may be options however:
1. If the routers have ISDN ports, this could be used to provide addtional bandwidth on demand with upto 128Kbps of additional capacity. This could be cost/effective, but the costs are also indeterminate.
2. The routers may be able to be configured for compression. This should work reasonable well on a 64K circuit.
3. If the site is in line of site, wireless LANs can operate at up to 11Mbps at a distance of up to 20Km.
4. Increasing to 128Kbps will be expensive, this runs over fibre (not copper like 64K, the installation costs are not just twice 64k.

As you will have gathered, there is no right answer and the solution will depend upon many factors. The simple answer is normally the best and before you invest in technology, there are often simple software changes and procedural measures that can be taken to improve performance. If you email me with more details, we could perhaps advise you further.

Graham McCarthy (IT Network Consultant)

Thanks (0)
Mark
By MarkRyan
08th Feb 2002 17:04

Is the problem with your leased line or with your "enhancements
There could be a number of causes here...
What data is moving between the offices?
What data needs to move between the offices?
Are both offices sharing Internet connections?
Why does an enhancement to a piece of software slow it down?
What other software is being used?

One correct answer may depend upon the technology and age of your existing link, as simply doubling its speed may or may not be cost-effective.

ADSL can provide great benefits, but these must be balanced with some significant potential drawbacks, depending upon your circumstances.

Terminal Server provides a quick fix, but also adds complexity to the system. Can you cope with this?

Email me your details and I'll call for a chat

(I'm an independent consultant and solution provider to the Profession, so have personal experience of these issues)

[email protected]

Thanks (0)
avatar
By neileg
11th Feb 2002 09:17

Good answer, Graham
I'd expect to pay a few hundred pounds for an answer as good as that!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By neileg
08th Feb 2002 16:35

A different answer
You could try using Windows Terminal server across your kilostream link. WTS runs all the processes on the server and only passes the keyboard, mouse and screen data over the link. This means that everything is processed locally. If anything goes wrong with the link, the user session is suspended and the user can pick up where they left off minutes or hours later when the link is restored.
Windows Terminal Server is at the heart of Windows 2000, was an add on to NT4 and could be implemented in other ways using Citrix software.
We run multiple users across slow kilostream links, even down to 2k lines. One advantage is that if you upgrade the host server, everyone benefits as the available power is shared between the active users. I have used our system when no one else is at work and it gives me 4 Pentium processors and 4Gb of RAM to play with. You can use 486 or even 386 machines to be terminals, or buy dumb terminals for a few hundred quid.

Thanks (0)