

Like the internet, intranets follow a client-server model. This model allows remote interaction between computers on one end an office building to a database on the other end. In comparison to a peer to peer network, the client-server model is much more secure, functional, and reliable in most cases. But instead of a client-server model, what if your company was to explore the peer to peer model more in-depth? Would the overall outcome be better, worse, or about the same as the client-server model in which the intranet follows?
In terms of bandwidth client-server models are inefficient. As more and more clients are added to the network, speed will continue to fall. This is because each added connection creates another path to the server that all the clients may communicate to at one time. If a large network of computers is interacting with the server all at once, performance is going to take a huge dip.
In contrast, peer to peer networks (P2P) actually increase in bandwidth as new clients are added. This is because instead of a single server, each client is internetworked together. As more nodes are added bandwidth limits will increase. This model allows for a seemingly infinite amount of bandwidth, given that there are enough nodes to accommodate demand.
The winner here is obvious - P2P is the better choice for scalability. But the fighter isn’t over yet!
What the client-server model lacks in scalability, it gains in security. The problem with the P2P model is that it commonly uses an “everyone is equal” rule. There isn’t a sole decider of what is right and what is wrong. With a client-server model, permissions can be set and security settings are easier applied.
Although a P2P network could, in essence, take several client-server traits and apply security measures; it would be impractical. Consider a network of 40 computers networked via a P2P connection. You have sensitive data on 10 of the computers that you don’t want just anyone to access. To do so, you would need to edit security settings on each individual computer- - ten times! Compare that to a single security settings edit on the client-server model.
If your company only has one server, all your eggs are in one basket. If something was to go wrong and the server crashed, the entire client-server network would be down. A downed network is a useless network - at this point, the peer to peer alternative is looking mighty fine.
The great thing about P2P networks is that they are redundant. If one client on the network happens to go down, the network is still perfectly fine in most cases. Depending on the physical network setup of the peer to peer network, multiple clients could be terminated without any noticeable effect.
There are solutions to the client-server model - most notably via using multiple servers. This can be somewhat costly, however. Although the client-server model doesn’t win this round, it should be noted that it could in fact considered to be redundant with more servers (and resources).
There is nothing more stressful than spending a day on updating every single computer on the network. If the update fixes a vital security flaw, this could even be a potential security risk. P2P networks lag behind client-server networks in a sense that the client-server network can update clients automatically.
Since there is no central point of a peer to peer network, there isn’t any one simple way to broadcast a mandatory security update. While it is true that getting creative can help speed up the process, in the end the client-server model is the true time saver.
Given the above information, we can only deduce that the only logical option for an intranet is a client-server network. This is due in part to the fact that a large amount of computers are likely to be requesting the same material. With the client-server model, changes could be made to a certain document and they would be reflected immediately upon saving. In the P2P design, sharing the same document among all clients would be a lot more stressful - considering multiple edits might have been made across multiple computers.
And although bandwidth and redundancy were the other faults of the client-server model, they can be remedied by implementing more servers onto the network. It may cost a bit more upfront and require more upkeep, but it will essentially give your network the best of both worlds.
The intranet would be hard to imagine without a client-server model intact. Indeed, it would mean a lot more stress for the network administrator and less functionality for intranet users. So the next time you shrink effort and increase productivity on your intranet, be sure to thank the wonderful intricacies of the client-server model for the convenience.