Re: Access or SQL Server 2005?

"analyst" <no@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:du27tt011ph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

I recounted...
16 users could actually access the data file at once.

Still not a problem for an Access-only solution (i.e., Access front
end, Access MDB as back end). However, it is possible with even a
small number of users to encounter problems if there are too many
simultaneous users for a single record (or single data page).

With 10 simultaneous users, you really ought to run a standalone
server, so have one machine with Windows Server 2003.

That does look like the best plan of all I have seen and heard so
far.

I would not do peer-to-peer when I had more than 5 users, and
especially not when I had access to a server.

If you have concurrency problems in an all-Access, you can
install SQL Server and upgrade the back-end data file to SQL
Server.

I'm not sure if this means everyone needs to be an SQL client, or
just the server.

The server has licenses installed on it that enable a certain number
of users to connect. These could be user licenses or machine
licenses, which means that they are allocated either according to
the Windows user logon, or by the Windows machine connecting to the
server. You need as many SQL Server licenses as you will have users
(there is no longer any Microsoft licensing that will allow you to
get by with fewer licenses on the basis of never exceeding a certain
number of simultaneous users).

I have an Excel file that queries an Access datafile for customer
ID. Is this the same idea?

As what?

If it is, are there pros and cons that favor users running Access
vs SQL? (other than price - no object here)

I don't see any similarity between the two scenarios (Excel with
Access vs. Excel with SQL Server). If you're going to user Access,
use it as a front end (and not just a data store) and get rid of
Excel entirely.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Interesting Questions from 70-228(MS SQL Server 2000)
    ... stored on the SQL Server computer. ... and a 3-GB data file to drive F ... at a bank's headquarters. ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse)
  • Interesting Question of 70-228
    ... stored on the SQL Server computer. ... and a 3-GB data file to drive F ... at a bank's headquarters. ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.mcdba)
  • Re: upsizing to SQL.
    ... I believe the correct term is now Remote Desktop.... ... Basically you would install a new Win2K3 box with however many licenses you ... > Terminal server is probably the best option. ... >> SQL Server doesn't magically make that problem go away. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign)
  • Interesting Question of 70-228
    ... >stored on the SQL Server computer. ... >transaction log to drive D, a 3-GB data file to drive E, ... >at a bank's headquarters. ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.mcdba)
  • Interesting Questions from 70-228(MS SQL Server 2000)
    ... >stored on the SQL Server computer. ... >transaction log to drive D, a 3-GB data file to drive E, ... >at a bank's headquarters. ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse)