Generally, when you consider software-distribution products, the movement of files is overshadowed by the complexities of the server- and desktop-management elements, such as inventory, installation and metering. These are important aspects of delivering and managing software for LAN- and WAN-connected servers and desktops, but they don't tell the whole story. In fact, problems with the movement of files in a reliable, trackable manner for WAN-connected enterprises has been a serious failing of software-delivery products.

In our Real-World Labs® at Syracuse University, we tested three software-distribution products: Hewlett-Packard Co.'s HP OpenView Desktop Administrator (DTA) 5.0, Microsoft Corp.'s Systems Management Server (SMS) 2.0 and Software Pursuits' SureSync 3.0. We examined each product's ability to control, transfer and audit files in a multitiered, WAN-connected configuration. This configuration was designed to mimic a controlling central site at the top tier, a regionally controlled second-tier site, and a remotely managed third-tier site, all connected by links of varying bandwidth and bandwidth impairments. We used Shunra Software's The Cloud 1.1 (www.shunra.com) to vary the available bandwidth from 512 Kbps to a skinny 63 Kbps, and threw in congestion, latency and dropped packets (see "How We Tested Software Distribution," at www.networkcomputing.com/1024/1024f2side1.html).

Our primary interest was to assess the products' management capabilities for transferring files from a central site. We looked for granular security to make distributing tasks possible. We sought out error controls and logs to help us determine whether jobs were being delivered. And we inspected for controls that were responsive to the amount of available bandwidth.

All the products showed sensitivity to moving files over WANs. When we squeezed the WAN bandwidth to a trickle, congested it with other traffic to increase latency or threw away packets, the transfers backed off and slowed to a crawl, but they didn't fail.

To our disappointment, all the products lack a calendar. They have schedules that can be applied to each job, but not the ability to create a job stream within the confines of a calendar (for end of week, month, quarter or year, for example), which gets created, tested and run in relation to other workloads and calendars. Yes, you could argue that they don't need a separate calendar mechanism because they are desktop and server software-management suites. But to us, it makes no sense to exert yourself to build a distributed architecture and then not use it fully.

Microsoft's SMS captured our Editor's Choice award with very strong logging, packaging and bandwidth sensitivity. A big improvement over the architecture of SMS 1.2, version 2.0 is highly distributable for redundancy and load-balancing. It isn't perfect, as our testing revealed, but it performed well and is ready for enterprise deployment.

HP's DTA finished second. Like Microsoft, HP has made big changes to its product's architecture, and the product's ability to work across WAN links is much improved. Since its move from the Symantec Corp. flock to HP's OpenView family, DTA has gained a distributable, hierarchical architecture. We found its ease of remote-site deployment impressive. However, its activity logs lack the careful control of SMS. Furthermore, application access control was nonexistent, beyond user ID and password access to the database.

While SureSync came in third, it earned our Best Value award. The product delivers an easy implementation and a complete function set for synchronizing files across a complex mix of WAN-connected servers and desktops at a truly impressive price. It does not, however, offer software-distribution hooks for preparing or cleaning up the desktop when software is installed.

If you're wondering why products from Computer Associates and Tivoli Systems weren't included in our tests, well, so are we. CA and Tivoli would seem to have superior architectures for integrating calendars and moving files across heterogeneous networks. But they declined our invitation, waving a white flag bearing the familiar motto "Between Releases." Officials at both companies made vague promises of great things to come. We suppose that if even a bit of their hype is true, CA and Tivoli users can expect new super-great software distribution any day now. We'll believe it when we see it.