I'm using iBackup (http://www.ibackup.com[^]) now for my personal backup. 5G for around $100 a year - not too bad. Their backup program has an option to encrypt with 256-bit AES as well before sending to their servers. I've used X-Drive before, another online backup provider. My advice is to not consider them - I cancelled my account about 3 weeks into usage due to shoddy behavior, crashes, and timeouts.

Great points.. thanks!

Actually I wrote a longer reply during these hours half a minute a piece, but when I was about to send it the server complained and since I didn't copied what I wrote it's now gone forever. :mad: Basically my point is this: jonathan15 wrote: so many things beyond your control that can affect the way your product behaves I'm aware of how things are for the time being, but this is what I refer to as immature. jonathan15 wrote: warrant that the entire .NET framework is error free :laugh: Naah, I think not... This could be a good example of a disclaimer, unless I've endorsed the use of .NET to the customer; I should know better being an "expert". However, I feel that Microsoft is quite mature regarding this. When you buy a product from MS, say an operating system, you get updates or service packs for free to fix problems with the product you've purchased. This is what I meant by "facing the consequences". The opposite would be if MS would charge extra for the updates, but they're not and that's the kind of "guarantees" I'm talking about. I feel ashamed when a customer has to pay extra for software development he/she purchased just to make it work as expected. Of course this usually happens when the customer is charged by the hour, because it's easiest to make not too obvious for the customer. -- Roger _It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it! Regarding CodeProject: "resistance is pointless; you will be assimilated"_

SOX? Yeah, it's a shame the Yanks beat 'em a few days ago.. The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.

Tim Kohler wrote: Maybe in shops of 100's of developers the roles are necessary... I mean I understand that DBAs and developers do in some cases have different knowledge bases.. But I think the two knowledge bases are merging. Hi Even in companies with less than 10 developers..Some times the role of a DBA is necessary. I worked in a company with 7 developers but with many databases and other indexing software..Managing all of this was really painful and the systems had security holes because some bad practices of developers. So the need for the DBA arrised...

Thanks a lot, I'll look at it more from this angle.

Yeah, I have noticed some that do not appear to know anything about programming but seem to have stumbled into a job as one... The post initially sent fears of the earily days when most messages in forums where telling people to see MSDN or books that you would have to buy. When you were trying to research something on the net and all you got were referrences to written materal (or MSDN) that you could not access without purchasing them, it made a lot of the forums virtually useless. Of course that was a number of years ago :) There is a lot of information online nowadays! Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com

Tim Kohler wrote: So as another workaround, I just wrote a small managed C++ dll that wraps winsock and used it to send and receive my tcp data (thereby bypassing the framework Socket class). This is working much better for me.. Good, but this will require FullTrust permissions since MC++ assemblies are implicitly unverifiable (at least till .NET 2.0, and only when you create a pure managed assembly). That may not be a problem, but you've been warned. :) Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles

It doesn't have anything to do with the size of the assembly. You've found a pattern, but a pattern unique to you. That happens to us with assemblies of all sizes, and assemblies that are referenced by others both frequently and infrequently. This problem exists in both VS.NET 2002 and 2003. While I too hope they fix it, it's not looking too good. I know a lot of people - including myself - have posted this bug to their newsgroups, but you should as well (use the NNTP server msnews.microsoft.com or the web-based news reader on their site in various places). Every mention should help. -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.21 GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++ -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

Heath, I was able to get around this by resorting to interop. I just wrapped a call to the CreateFile function and then instantiated a FileStream object using the file handle (IntPtr) returned from CreateFile. Once I took this route everything works fine. It looks like there's a bug in the FCL when the FileStream class goes to open the files. Anyway, just an FYI. thanks again Tim