Database on network

I know all the advice is to split a database into 2 parts - application and
data -and put the data on a server and the application on individual pcs.
Unfortunately the person I am creating an application for is adamant that it
is not to be split and is to be used by a couple of pcs accessing the
database which will be on the network.
Basically I need to know if it can be used like this. Will more than one pc
be able to access the database at a time? They may need to use the same forms
but not the same data at the same time. Is there anything I need to set at
database level to allow this to work properly?

kbrad wrote:
I know all the advice is to split a database into 2 parts -
application and data -and put the data on a server and the
application on individual pcs. Unfortunately the person I am creating
an application for is adamant that it is not to be split and is to be
used by a couple of pcs accessing the database which will be on the
network.
Basically I need to know if it can be used like this. Will more than
one pc be able to access the database at a time? They may need to use
the same forms but not the same data at the same time. Is there
anything I need to set at database level to allow this to work
properly?

It will work exactly the same as a properly split app except that you
increase the risk that the file will become corrupted. So go ahead and do
it, set up a good backup system, and rehearse your "I told you so" speach
for when the file gets buggered.


--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

This adamant person is very dumb and apparently needs some education about
Access databases. By keeping the application and data in one file, you'd
make it impossible to update the application without taking the database
off-line. Also, the database will be much more prone to
corruption....especially with multiple users. Finally, performance will
suffer because you're bringing the entire database off the server whenever
it is accessed vs specific data, if the database were split properly. I'd
split it whether this person wants it or not. Just make sure you have code
to relink the tables as needed. Customers are NOT always right.

--
Paul Overway
Logico Solutions
http://www.logico-solutions.com


"kbrad" wrote in message
...
I know all the advice is to split a database into 2 parts - application and
data -and put the data on a server and the application on individual pcs.
Unfortunately the person I am creating an application for is adamant that
it
is not to be split and is to be used by a couple of pcs accessing the
database which will be on the network.
Basically I need to know if it can be used like this. Will more than one
pc
be able to access the database at a time? They may need to use the same
forms
but not the same data at the same time. Is there anything I need to set at
database level to allow this to work properly?

No matter what you do, there will always be an increased risk of
corruption with a multi-user monolithic database. Does the "person you
are creating the app for" have a good reason for insisting on this, or
are they just stubborn + ignorant (explosive mix!)? If you can't refuse
to do it that way, at least make sure you make the risk clear right up
front (in writing is this is in a business environment).

HTH,
Nikos

kbrad wrote:
I know all the advice is to split a database into 2 parts - application and
data -and put the data on a server and the application on individual pcs.
Unfortunately the person I am creating an application for is adamant that it
is not to be split and is to be used by a couple of pcs accessing the
database which will be on the network.
Basically I need to know if it can be used like this. Will more than one pc
be able to access the database at a time? They may need to use the same forms
but not the same data at the same time. Is there anything I need to set at
database level to allow this to work properly?

"kbrad" wrote:

I know all the advice is to split a database into 2 parts - application and
data -and put the data on a server and the application on individual pcs.
Unfortunately the person I am creating an application for is adamant that it
is not to be split and is to be used by a couple of pcs accessing the
database which will be on the network.
Basically I need to know if it can be used like this. Will more than one pc
be able to access the database at a time? They may need to use the same forms
but not the same data at the same time. Is there anything I need to set at
database level to allow this to work properly?

Just out of curiosity, what is the reasoning this person has given for not
wanting the DB split?
Rosco

"kbrad" wrote in message
...
I know all the advice is to split a database into 2 parts - application and
data -and put the data on a server and the application on individual pcs.

Unfortunately the person I am creating an application for is adamant that
it
is not to be split and is to be used by a couple of pcs accessing the
database which will be on the network.

You should still push to get your application split.
I have no idea why they would not want to split, but then how can you offer
updates
to software if you don't split? With data+ code in one file..you can't offer
software
updates!

How can you even work on a bug, or the next great report why users are
working? (please don't tell me you ask everyone to exit while you work?).

I mean, you can most certainly put a few word documents on the server. But,
I would think that users would have word installed on each pc. The same
concept goes for the runtime, or full version of ms-access (or Excel, or
whatever for that matter!).

And, in fact, in any multiple user applications that YOU write, then YOU
SHOULD do the same idea. Be it Word, Excel, or some application that you
create with ms-access, that mde should be installed on EACH workstation
(and, you are using a mde for the application part..right?).

Just because you start developing software, that does not mean you throw out
all the ideas of installing Word, or Excel, or YOUR mde application on each
workstation.

It is very possible that the people asking you this
question don't understand the difference between a file with data in it, and
something that is an actual software application that you write with
code/forms etc.? On the other hand, if the people giving you this
advice don't know the difference between a file with data, and
a application that runs on windows, then that would explain the
"hesitance" here.

I am willing to bet that the client does not understand the difference
between a document, or a file, and a application?

There is no way that the company is suggesting to install word, or Excel
on the server..are they?

Why such
a huge change of heart here? Why for the last zillion years did the company
installs software on each pc, but all of a sudden now have a brain freeze,
and start installing software on the server for each computer? When did this
idea come along?

I have not talked to ANY support person (who usually knows little about
ms-access), and even they have NEVER EVER suggested that they start
installing software that should run on each pc be now all of a sudden
installed on the server? I simply do NOT believe your request that the
company now wants to remove software from each desktop, and try and run it
on the server???

I guess, we have to bring this whole discussion down a bit, and explain
what
a application is:

A software application is typically something that has code, and has a
interface that interacts with the user. These applications (word, Excel, or
you cool application you just wrote using some development tools) is
generally installed on a pc.

So,
when you have a split database, the back end file is simply a document file
that the front end (software part) opens. Again, you do this with Excel,
Word etc. The same concepts apply here to ms-access. So, it is
important to note that ms-access can store both code, and data. Ms-access is
different then a "document", since ms-access is a tool to MAKE software. I
mean, the fact of the matter is that some developers sat down and make word.
The fact is you sat down, and developed some software also. So, Word, Excel,
or your application
obviously will have two parts:

Application part
+
data file part, or so called document file part when speaking of word
etc.

The main idea or concept I trying to explain here is that you as a general
rule install your applications on your pc. So, you install word on your pc.

So,
you install Excel on your pc. So, you install ms-access on your pc. Now, if
you happen to be a developer, and crate an application with ms-access (or
VB,
or c++, or vb.net), then once again, you should install that application on
each workstation. I don't think this approach should be changed at all here
just because you purchased Word, but actually wrote your own application
here?

(why should the fact that you "MAKE" or purchase software decide where it
gets installed? What kind of logic is that??).


However, just like Word, or Excel, if you want to share the data part, then
you are free to put the data part on a file share and let others use that
file. In the case of Word, Excel, or YOUR cool option, you never did need
to install word, or Excel on the server. You simply use the application
INSTALLED ON YOUR PC to OPEN that file!!

Remember, that data file is just a
dumb plain old file, and the server has no knowledge that word, or excel, or
your cool application is going to open that file. So, you are free to place
word documents on the server. You are free to place Excel documents on the
server. And, you are free to place the data part from YOUR application on
the server also!

All the server is doing here is dishing out files to users. So, be
it word, Excel, or your cool application, no one is suggesting that you
install these applications on the server.

It is importation that I be fair, and I can't possibility assume that the IT
department knows ms-access. It would be MOST un-fair, and un-kind for me to
criticize someone simply because they don't know a product (that would be
just plain rude on my part!!).

However, while your IT department might not understand ms-access, I can bet
you a zillion dollars that the IT department DOES IN FACT AS A GENERAL RULE
install software on each pc. This concept they can understand, and if can't
grasp that concept, then I do have serious criticisms. (so, they don't have
to know ms-access, but any IT department BETTER understand that desktop
software gets installed on each desktop!).

The only thing left here is then to explain that ms-access is a tool used to
MAKE software. Once the concept is explained that ms-access is a tool used
to create software, then I think all will grasp the concept of why you
install it on each pc (since, they do that for all other software).

Again, I am willing to bet that your IT department as a general rule does
install the
software on each pc, and they likely should continue this time honored
approach that they been doing since windows came out. I just don't believe
that your IT department is REALLY suggesting, or asking that code now be
placed on the server instead of each pc.

If those IT people really are suggesting that software be installed on the
server, and NOT on the desktop, then one has to ask why did install
practically everything else on the pc?

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

Absolutely - I'm ready with it!!

"Rick Brandt" wrote:

kbrad wrote:
I know all the advice is to split a database into 2 parts -
application and data -and put the data on a server and the
application on individual pcs. Unfortunately the person I am creating
an application for is adamant that it is not to be split and is to be
used by a couple of pcs accessing the database which will be on the
network.
Basically I need to know if it can be used like this. Will more than
one pc be able to access the database at a time? They may need to use
the same forms but not the same data at the same time. Is there
anything I need to set at database level to allow this to work
properly?

It will work exactly the same as a properly split app except that you
increase the risk that the file will become corrupted. So go ahead and do
it, set up a good backup system, and rehearse your "I told you so" speach
for when the file gets buggered.


--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

Thanks

"Paul Overway" wrote:

This adamant person is very dumb and apparently needs some education about
Access databases. By keeping the application and data in one file, you'd
make it impossible to update the application without taking the database
off-line. Also, the database will be much more prone to
corruption....especially with multiple users. Finally, performance will
suffer because you're bringing the entire database off the server whenever
it is accessed vs specific data, if the database were split properly. I'd
split it whether this person wants it or not. Just make sure you have code
to relink the tables as needed. Customers are NOT always right.

--
Paul Overway
Logico Solutions
http://www.logico-solutions.com


"kbrad" wrote in message
...
I know all the advice is to split a database into 2 parts - application and
data -and put the data on a server and the application on individual pcs.
Unfortunately the person I am creating an application for is adamant that
it
is not to be split and is to be used by a couple of pcs accessing the
database which will be on the network.
Basically I need to know if it can be used like this. Will more than one
pc
be able to access the database at a time? They may need to use the same
forms
but not the same data at the same time. Is there anything I need to set at
database level to allow this to work properly?