Synching databases (Access MDBs)
in [Help]
|
Prev: Need End User Trainers (3 positions) , North carolina, NC
Next: Senior Cognos Consultant Detroit, MI
From: David W. Fenton on 6 May 2010 13:27 Roger <lesperancer(a)natpro.com> wrote in news:30b74056-58e8-4733-bbea-ba6eaa33f1b5(a)i10g2000yqh.googlegroups.co m: > just wondering, what other solutions allow you to have 2 people > share the current ms-access application ? > > terminal services ? This is what I would consider the most efficient solution. It's really cheap to implement in an environment where there's already a terminal server -- not so much for two users. > data syncing ? how reliable is this ms-access feature ? It's perfectly reliable if done correctly. But for the kind of scenario you identify, it's complex to set up and needs to be designed and implemented by someone who understands all the issues. Jet Replication Wiki: http://dfenton.com/DFA/Replication/ > hosted sharepoint ? how much would that cost / month ? This is the direction I plan on investigating this summer because I believe it's the best replacement for Jet replication. > how reliable in the access2007 version ? > if PW's app, is pre 2007, s/he'd need to > upgrade So far as I'm aware, it's just as reliable as previous versions of Access. To use the full features of current versions of Sharepoint, and upgrade would be needed. > what other solution is there ? Outside of a forum for Access developers, you'll find that the only thing people will recommend is the "obvious" solution to re-write the application as a browser-based app. They don't seem to understand how complex that is and how much functionality you give up. One of the fabulous things about Access Services with Sharepoint 2010 and an Access web app run in the browser is that you give up nothing at all -- the result is identical to the same app running within Access. This is huge and ultimately seems to me that it will be very popular, even among those who'd never have considered Access in the past. But I could be overoptimistic in that. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: PW on 6 May 2010 14:39 On Wed, 5 May 2010 13:03:33 -0700 (PDT), Roger <lesperancer(a)natpro.com> wrote: >On May 5, 11:35�am, PW <emailaddyin...(a)ifIremember.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 5 May 2010 13:24:15 -0400, "Arvin Meyer" <arv...(a)invalid.org> >> wrote: >> >> >It is necessary because multiple users on the same front-end WILL eventually >> >cause a corruption. >> >> >A server is a standalone machine that stores and serves files. No one works >> >on a server. That means in a 2 user situation you have 3 machines, a server >> >and 2 PCs. If you are using a peer to peer network (only 2 machines) only >> >one user should be working at a time (for terminal services). On a >> >peer-to-peer LAN there can be 2 machines without a server, and both users >> >can work at the same time. >> >> >In ALL cases you MUST use a separate front-end, linked to the data, for EACH >> >user. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. If you do not have separate >> >front-ends you will corrupt eventually. >> >> We do have the code seperated from the data. �Multiple users are using >> it on a LAN for the most part, some have a server. � >> >> I did not understand what you meant by " make sure that you >> have a folder with a second copy of the front-end." >> >> Maybe if you reread what I said it will make it through this time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >I can't make it any plainer than that.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >your original post talks of 2 people, now you're are talking of many >people, some on a lan, some with servers > I guess I was getting greedy <g>. Nah, just trying to cover all scenerios. >lets go back to just 2 people >right now they have their own computer, with a frontend and a backend >MDB, correct ? Yes. > >if you want them to both work at the same time, you need a third >computer to act as a server >that computer will have the backend MDB and 2 copies of the front end >mdb (one for mom and on for sis) > >that computer can physically be at mom's house, sis's house or your >house Got ya. I will check with them. >Arvin's link to http://www.thinsoftinc.com/product_thin_client_winconnect_server_vs.aspx >will allow you to set up this 'server' so that both users can RDP to >it and run their copy of the frontend > >you could allow RDP to it to do backups, updates, etc Thanks very much. I understand now. I just did not understand Arvin's two folder thing. I will check out his article. Thanks guys! -paul
From: PW on 6 May 2010 14:42 On Wed, 5 May 2010 13:33:11 -0400, "Arvin Meyer" <arvinm(a)invalid.org> wrote: > >"David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message >news:Xns9D6EE93A589E2f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.90... > >> I think for this purpose, I'd go with hosted Sharepoint and use it >> to synch between databases. Dunno if that works reliably and >> efficiently with what's currently available (A2007), but what's >> coming with A2010 and Sharepoint 2010 with Access Services would >> serve the purpose quite well. > >Sharepoint is more complex, and is not fully relational. AAMOF, only Access >2010 has any relational capability with Sharepoint at all. Sharepoint >hosting is also expensive for a small operation. There are no free >Sharepoint hosts. and the cheapest I've seen is $20 per month. A fully >operation Sharepoint server with licensing is $80 per month + $7.50 per >user. > >In Contrast, a cheap PC running as a server with WinConnect, might cost a >total of $700 to $800 for up to 3 users. And just running Remote services >for a single user costs nothing. Thanks Arvin. Good stuff. -paulw
From: PW on 6 May 2010 14:43 On 6 May 2010 02:27:27 GMT, "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote: >"Arvin Meyer" <arvinm(a)invalid.org> wrote in >news:oLadndZyCpgOMXzWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com: > >> >> "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message >> news:Xns9D6EE93A589E2f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.90... >> >>> I think for this purpose, I'd go with hosted Sharepoint and use >>> it to synch between databases. Dunno if that works reliably and >>> efficiently with what's currently available (A2007), but what's >>> coming with A2010 and Sharepoint 2010 with Access Services would >>> serve the purpose quite well. >> >> Sharepoint is more complex, and is not fully relational. > >Sharepoint 2010 has enough features to make it relational enough, >and where it's weak, you can implement triggers. > >> AAMOF, only Access >> 2010 has any relational capability with Sharepoint at all. > >Er, what? Are you saying the regular Sharepoint database doesn't >have it? > >> Sharepoint >> hosting is also expensive for a small operation. There are no free >> Sharepoint hosts. and the cheapest I've seen is $20 per month. A >> fully operation Sharepoint server with licensing is $80 per month >> + $7.50 per user. > >I haven't looked into it. I assumed it would be priced similarly to >Exchange Server, which is closer to $20/month for full service. > >> In Contrast, a cheap PC running as a server with WinConnect, might >> cost a total of $700 to $800 for up to 3 users. And just running >> Remote services for a single user costs nothing. > >I would agree that some version of Terminal Services is probably the >easiest to implement, but I'm not sure it's the right solution for >really small groups of users (like two). But it might be for our larger clients. Good to know in case they ask. Thanks. -pw
From: rkc on 7 May 2010 08:59
An odbc connection to a hosted MySql or SQL Server database might be something to consider. Cheap. Easy to set up. Don't have to change anything but the links in the frontend .mdb file. Sharepoint would be a ridiculously complicated and expensive solution for 2 users. |