Actually, it is ParallelFox that I am implementing into my Test Case ( FUnit ) utility. So far it is working great. I am investigating what it would take is pass tasks to other available machines.

>He Greg,
>
>I had a project like that many years ago -- when security wasn't what it is today. It involved processing ACH transfers, which could pile up if a server went down, or if the flow was more than the existing servers could handle. I got it working, but it was cumbersome, and so I re-designed it to a) have one server be a listener; b) if a machine observed there was no listener, it became the listener; c) the listener assigned tasks to all machines that had registered as servers; d) if a task was assigned to a worker machine but went over a time limit, the Listener re-assigned the task to an open Worker. Thus, machines could be taken offline or added as needed (we didn't go so far as to fire up machines).
>
>It all ran off data, as you probably surmised by now. Worked fast and great.
>
>The client didn't like it because it wasn't DCOM. Oh well.
>
>Today you would build it with queues, but I'm not at all certain that having it run the way I did 11 years ago wouldn't be the more robust solution, nor do I think queues would be faster.
>
>The one thing I would do if designing it today, which was irrelevant back then, is use ParallelFox to utilize all the cores on a given machine. Each Worker would have an exe that ran multiple tasks in Parallel. The exe would, on completion of a task, mark it finished in the workflow table, and grab another to be run by the now empty process. PFox is ridiculously easy to use, fwiw. Great job by Joel.
>
>Hank
>
>
>
>>Hi All.
>>
>>In part of a recent project, I would like to call a remote outproc server (EXE) on a different machine. Therefore, off loading local task to other machines.
>>
>>Is DCOM still used? If not, what has replaced it?