ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Create Local & Cloud copy of the same files on multiple computers & stay synced

<< < (2/2)

Stoic Joker:
If you have a Windows server and Windows clients, why aren't they simply establishing a VPN connection into it? Then a nice simple batch file (example: net use E: "\\server_name\share_name" /persistent:no) or powershell script that maps the drive(s) can be invoked by the user and all should be well.

Or am I just tired and missing something obvious... :huh:


ADDENUM: I did miss it. Right on the OP. Sorry! :-[
-40hz (April 11, 2014, 11:23 AM)
--- End quote ---

Actually that one had me baffled out of the gate as well. How the hell is the ISP blocking port 445 inside the tunnel? Raw traffic to the web sure...I can almost understand that one ... But inside the tunnel? ...That's just mean.

Turing them loose inside the real server could be a bad idea.  I would have to lock them down to ONLY that single directory and ONLY being able to copy files from it as needed to upload to the website.  The files get uploaded in batches of 5 or 10 files to a mixtures= of areas so they still need the "middle" area.  As in copy to their drive, then upload an needed.  THEN  delete the copies.  That is the other problem.  In doing it this way, they are "forgetting" that once they have uploaded the files, they need to delete them from their "piles" and start fresh ones.  They tend to name them all kinds of weird folder names and forget what they were. 

They have been putting them everywhere.-questorfla (April 11, 2014, 07:25 AM)
--- End quote ---

Two other handy technologies for stuff like this are the Distributed File System (DFS) and Shadow Copies/Previous Versions. DFS allows you to control access to the file system by only displaying the targets you want to see, instead of the whole drive. Granted NTFS permissions can/will keep them out of stuff too. But I find it's better to keep a users options as narrow as possible so they don't get lost/tempted/curious/etc. DFS can also provide access to discontiguous locations in a single virtual space. So even if the files were scattered across 9 different drives and servers, they could still access the allowed portions of all from a single drive mapping. I leveraged the capabilities of DFS to decommission our old file server during business hours, and while 20 people were in and out of the system all day long...nobody noticed the transition. Also the DFS roots aren't writable, which is a beautifully simply of enforcing cleanliness.

On a side note: most of the big multi function printer/copiers these days have a feature the automatically deletes files scanned from it to a share that are older than X time period. I'm wondering if there is something like that for file servers ... 40hz, ideas? I'd hate to have to write the thing myself ... But it is kind of tempting (in a sick evil fun sort of way). *Shrug* Back on Topic!

Previous Version uses/is part of the same Windows System Restore feature we all know and occasionally love or hate depending on how well it's working that day. When enabled (by default) it takes a snapshot of the drive every 12 hours. So if something gets deleted it can be restored on the fly from the Previous Versions tab of the parent folders properties dialog. The snapshot interval is configurable but it isn't recommended to take one more often than once an hour. I usually either go with the default or bump it to 3 times a day. This is also quite handy for those odd moments when somebody deleted something yesterday, so the previous nights backup media is already off site - and 20+ miles away - yet somebody important needs file X right freakin now.

Ok...from SJ's comment above maybe I didn't miss something?

Is it really possible for your ISP to block a port inside a VPN connection? This is a Micosoft to Microsoft VPN connection with no 3rd party involved - so the ISP shouldn't be able to see into it at all. That's the whole point of that "P" in VPN.

If they can, that's a new one for me.  :huh:

This sounds more like a policy or firewall issue on the server side.

That's the whole point of that "P" in VPN. -40hz (April 11, 2014, 06:21 PM)
--- End quote ---

Please obey the rules when using our VN. There's no P in it and we'd like to keep it that way.

(Modern take on the old pool joke.)

Well...I thought it was funny. ;)

for 40hz and company,  Yes, they can and do.  And I was busy proving it years ago before they stared publishing the fact on their website.  I would love to think my persistent pestering actually caused them to "fess up".    Not that it did any good but at least now I have Proof I can point to instead of people telling me I am a looney case and the problem is I don't know how to create a vpn.

I tried every possible trick, every possible mixture of protocols, every port forward or port "backward" or Ports AHOY!.

Nothing worked.  If they were using certain ISP's they had no ability to map to a folder.
On other ISP's the same exact procedure worked like a charm.  What got really weird was when SOME of the Cellular routers began to do the same thing.
Not all and not necessarily "by the provider"  it was a software thing,
They could be working one day, get a softare update on their cellular router (MiFi or whatever your favorite name for them) and AFTER that update, No Mapping.  Nothing else is affected and the ONLY way you can prove anything is to run Port Test software on the USERS's system.  It is blocked from them OUT not me IN so I can't even see the block.  And none of them was enough of a tech to have such software not know how to use it.

I finally had the "light-bulb" moment and connected to a system at their home as a remote user and ran the software for them from their end.  Sure enough, Port 445 TCP was dead as a doornail!

But on MY end it looks like they should have NO problem and the VPN will connect perfectly.

What is really "Evil" about this is their "Claim of Security" holds no water when you think about the fact that if you PAY for a business connection suddenly they don't CARE if you get "infected"?  I guess they only want to protect "Home Users"  ?? :-\  And apparently only for the USER getting OUT, Not from the "threat" getting IN. 

This same policy is now used by almost every large ISP.  I know of only a few who still let all traffic flow freely and I bet it is only a matter of time before they start the same racket.  All about  $$.


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version