RE: testing for a remote file to include file on a Windows mapped drive

[Drew Adams]

> > > > Whether I access a local Windows drive (even a slow one) or 
> > > > a Windows mapped network drive that happens to be in India,
> > > > there is a world of difference.
> > > 
> > > No one in their right minds will mount a drive half the 
> > > globe away via NFS or similar networking filesystem.
> > > They will always use something like Tramp or ftp.  So
> > > this problem simply does not exist in practice.
> >
> > I didn't say anything about NFS or similar; I mentioned 
> > Windows mapped network drives.
> 
> Same same.  Note that I did say ``or similar networking filesystem''.

So it makes no sense to map a Windows network drive to a remote UNIX file system
with SMB. I learn something everyday. I'll start letting the others know.

> > I don't know what your idea of "does not exist in practice" 
> > is, but I work for a fairly large corporation with developers
> > and servers all over the planet, and that is how we work.
> 
> Then you have very strange sysadmins, IMHO.

Oracle has very strange sysadmins and engineers. They are not in their right
minds. What they are doing simply does not exist in practice; they just don't
know it. Thanks for setting me straight, at least.

> > However, accessing a mapped network drive is typically
> > much slower than accessing a local hard drive (please -
> > no comments about USB sticks).
> 
> That is simply not true in general, even before situations like USB
> sticks are concerned.  Of course, if you are in the US and the drive
> is in Asia, that could be true, but that is a very unusual situation.

According to the network engineers I spoke with today, it is true in general.
It's about the network properties (software and hardware), not necessarily the
distance. It makes sense to me, but I'm no networking expert. You win.