March 3, 2010 at 8:14 am
So we have our production SQL server, it never uses more than 20% of it's CPU, RAM, network connection.
It uses a SAN for all storage.
We need to place some Access database front ends, and a few related files someplace.
The server we were using is dead and we can't buy a new one.
So how awful of an idea is this?
The data would be on the SAN, not local drives... does this create security issues that need to be addressed, etc...?
Thoughts?
March 3, 2010 at 8:17 am
Depending on how you have your Access set up - Access can be pretty brutal on IO, so at very least see if you can use separate drives/LUN's, so you don't sink your DB performance because of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
March 3, 2010 at 8:25 am
in your situation i would also wonder if access is worth spending effort on if there is no money available.
perhaps an open door but if using access saves you money in some way ... then the savings should enable (and "allow") you to afford hardware. if there are no savings from it ... why use it.
the reason of this question is that i sometimes have users who are not able to say good bye to there old applications but there is no businessreason at all to keep 'm. and because there's no businessreason there is no money available ...
March 3, 2010 at 8:52 am
Yeah, all painfully true points.
In this case we are working to migrate off Access and replacing with a WPF app.
However, that will take a year to complete and this is an immediate need. 🙁
Most of the access stuff is using the same SQL server as the backend, so these are just front ends stored there.
User clicks desktop short cut, little VB script runs, checks the front end, copies new version to user's desktop is needed and then launches the FE from the user's desktop.
A few are .mdb files though, which is a sad sad thing 🙁
March 3, 2010 at 9:40 am
How about a robust PC with drive space enough to fit need?
We use Access on some data interfaces (mostly back to Oracle), and run it as middle man to create and stage data to be picked up by other applications' jobs.
Works well.
Access makes data available for this purpose via scheduled jobs running daily and weekly, depending on the data.
The PC is not used by any end users. It is just a data exchange machine.
March 4, 2010 at 2:25 am
I agree with Matt...if you have the option of configuring a separate LUN/drive for the file storage, you might as well use the hardware you have. File transfers are low cost on CPU and Memory so if you can isolate the disk IO you should be golden.
If you cannot create separate LUNs you will need to determine the IO capacity of the existing LUNs and the current usage/patterns. If you can move files on and off of without causing IO contention issues, easily identified as queued reads and writes, you are still golden.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply