<p>I'm looking at developing a device which will need to support Ethernet over USB (hosted in Linux, XP, and Vista). As I understand it, Vista and Linux support the industry standard USB CDC. However, in classic Windows style, XP only supports it's own Remote NDIS. So, now I'm thinking of just bowing down and doing it over RNDIS, as opposed to rolling my own CDC driver for XP.</p>

<p>I've been reading some older documentation that says even XP is pretty buggy with NDIS (suprise!). Does anyone have experience with XP's RNDIS drivers? Are they safe for product development? Any insight would be much appreciated.</p>

[{'answer_id': 50668, 'author': 'Andrew Wilkinson', 'author_id': 2990, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/2990', 'pm_score': 5, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>The filesystem backend is only worth looking at if you're not going to use a database for any other part of your system. If you are using a database then the filesystem backend has nothing to recommend it.</p>\n\n<p>The memcache backend is much quicker than the database backend, but you run the risk of a session being purged and some of your session data being lost.</p>\n\n<p>If you're a really, really high traffic website and code carefully so you can cope with losing a session then use memcache. If you're not using a database use the file system cache, but the default database backend is the best, safest and simplest option in almost all cases.</p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 51511, 'author': 'Will Harris', 'author_id': 4702, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4702', 'pm_score': 4, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>I\'m no Django expert, so this answer is about session stores generally. Downvote if I\'m wrong.</p>\n\n<h2>Performance and Scalability</h2>\n\n<p>Choice of session store has an effect on performance and scalability. This should only be a big problem if you have a very popular application.</p>\n\n<p>Both database and filesystem session stores are (usually) backed by disks so you can have a lot of sessions cheaply (because disks are cheap), but requests will often have to wait for the data to be read (because disks are slow). Memcached sessions use RAM, so will cost more to support the same number of concurrent sessions (because RAM is expensive), but may be faster (because RAM is fast).</p>\n\n<p>Filesystem sessions are tied to the box where your application is running, so you can\'t load balance between multiple application servers if your site gets huge. Database and memcached sessions let you have multiple application servers talking to a shared session store.</p>\n\n<h2>Simplicity</h2>\n\n<p>Choice of session store will also impact how easy it is to deploy your site. Changing away from the default will cost some complexity. Memcached and RDBMSs both have their own complexities, but your application is probably going to be using an RDBMS anyway.</p>\n\n<p>Unless you have a very popular application, simplicity should be the larger concern.</p>\n\n<h2>Bonus</h2>\n\n<p>Another approach is to store <a href="https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.8/topics/http/sessions/#using-cookie-based-sessions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">session data in cookies</a> (all of it, not just an ID). This has the advantage that the session store automatically scales with the number of users, but it has disadvantages too. You (or your framework) need to be careful to stop users forging session data. You also need to keep each session small because the whole thing will be sent with every request.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 100464, 'author': 'zgoda', 'author_id': 12138, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/12138', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>One thing that has to be considered when choosing session backend is "how often session data is modified"? Even sites with moderate traffic will suffer if session data is modified on each request, making many database trips to store and retrieve data.</p>\n\n<p>In my previous work we used memcache as session backend exclusively and it worked really well. Our administrative team put really great effort in making two special memcached instances stable as a rock, but after bit of twiddling with initial setup, we did not have any interrupts of session backends operations.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 326046, 'author': 'kaleissin', 'author_id': 30368, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/30368', 'pm_score': 1, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>If the database have a DBA that isn't you, you may not be allowed to use a database-backed session (it being a front-end matter only). Until django supports easily merging data from several databases, so that you can have frontend-specific stuff like sessions and user-messages (the messages in django.contrib.auth are also stored in the db) in a separate db, you need to keep this in mind.</p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 1939548, 'author': 'Anthony Batchelor', 'author_id': 128819, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/128819', 'pm_score': 3, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>As of Django 1.1 you can use the cached_db session back end.</p>\n\n<p>This stores the session in the cache (only use with memcached), and writes it back to the DB.  If it has fallen out of the cache, it will be read from the DB.</p>\n\n<p>Although this is slower than just using memcached for storing the session, it adds persistence to the session.</p>\n\n<p>For more information, see: <a href="http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/http/sessions/#using-cached-sessions" rel="noreferrer" title="Using Cached Sessions">Django Docs: Using Cached Sessions</a></p>\n'}]
['https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/50571', 'https://Stackoverflow.com', 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4831/']