Is SQL required for 15 users

Hello:
I have 15 clients that connect to an Access database that is hosted on a sha
red network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the database
designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we introduce a
nd SQL server. Workstatio
ns are WinXP, with Office and Access 2000. Two clients are using Office 200
0, on Win2000Pro. The server is Win2000 with active directory.
This is a costly endeavour, and I wonder if it is an overkill for such a sma
ll site. A maximum of four users need to have write access simultanoeusly.
The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored on a network dri
ve where all have full read
and write access. I would tend to reconfigure security appropriately on the
server and isolate the database and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solutio
n to resolve this issue, and then introduce SQL if problem persist. Does i
t make sense, or would you
recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
Thanks"CC" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2ED7F5C-8C6F-4FA5-99E6-A28116D5169D@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> I have 15 clients that connect to an Access database that is hosted on a
shared network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the
database designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we
introduce and SQL server. Workstations are WinXP, with Office and Access
2000. Two clients are using Office 2000, on Win2000Pro. The server is
Win2000 with active directory.
> This is a costly endeavour, and I wonder if it is an overkill for such a
small site. A maximum of four users need to have write access
simultanoeusly. The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored
on a network drive where all have full read and write access. I would tend
to reconfigure security appropriately on the server and isolate the database
and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solution to resolve this issue, and then
introduce SQL if problem persist. Does it make sense, or would you
recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
> Thanks
>
Access 2003 has the same problems as Access 2000 with respect to corruption.
See if the developer can get MSDE. It's SqlServer, it's free and for a
small database with 15 clients it will work fine.
David|||A properly designed Access project can handle your description. It will by
definition be file-server and not client-server, but each user should have
their own front-end mdb and the back end should be at least one mdb. You
should seek help in nntp://comp.databases.ms-access.
hth
Eric
"CC" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2ED7F5C-8C6F-4FA5-99E6-A28116D5169D@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> I have 15 clients that connect to an Access database that is hosted on a
shared network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the
database designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we
introduce and SQL server. Workstations are WinXP, with Office and Access
2000. Two clients are using Office 2000, on Win2000Pro. The server is
Win2000 with active directory.
> This is a costly endeavour, and I wonder if it is an overkill for such a
small site. A maximum of four users need to have write access
simultanoeusly. The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored
on a network drive where all have full read and write access. I would tend
to reconfigure security appropriately on the server and isolate the database
and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solution to resolve this issue, and then
introduce SQL if problem persist. Does it make sense, or would you
recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
> Thanks
>
>
>
>|||A properly designed Access DB may or may not be able to handle 15 users.
Probably yes. But we don't know the workload. We do know that they have been
having corruption problems which Access is susecptible to.
A single processor license of SQL Standard goes for less than 5K. MSDE of
course would be free if they can use that. Perhaps the MSDE version with
Access?
But even at 5K... I question whether or not it's truly a costly endeavor.
How much was paid to have the consultant come in and 'fix the problem'.
What's the cost to the business, including lost worker productivity, in
dealing with these corruption problems?
Access is a great DB. But Access doesn't scale as well and if customer is
already seeing corruption, perhaps they should consider SQL. I don't
honestly think cost shoudl be the deciding factor in a situation like this,
at least not unless the 'cost' of having corrputed Access db's in factored.
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Eric Sabine" <mopar41@.___ho_y_tmail.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:eYY9g$tBEHA.712@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> A properly designed Access project can handle your description. It will
by
> definition be file-server and not client-server, but each user should have
> their own front-end mdb and the back end should be at least one mdb. You
> should seek help in nntp://comp.databases.ms-access.
> hth
> Eric
>
> "CC" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F2ED7F5C-8C6F-4FA5-99E6-A28116D5169D@.microsoft.com...
> shared network drive. We experienced data corruprion recently and the
> database designer that was hired to fix this problem recommended that we
> introduce and SQL server. Workstations are WinXP, with Office and Access
> 2000. Two clients are using Office 2000, on Win2000Pro. The server is
> Win2000 with active directory.
> small site. A maximum of four users need to have write access
> simultanoeusly. The database is less than 50Mb in size, and it is stored
> on a network drive where all have full read and write access. I would
tend
> to reconfigure security appropriately on the server and isolate the
database
> and roll out ACCESS 2003 as a first solution to resolve this issue, and
then
> introduce SQL if problem persist. Does it make sense, or would you
> recommend I roll-in a SQL server?
>|||We experienced data corruption once since my arrival, but no maintenance was
performed on the databases at all for a few years. We were plagued with ne
twork slowdows at the time of the incident. Maintenance was performed on th
e server (among other thing
s that were found is 16% fragmentation). The contractor that created the
database invoice a day of work. I understand the problem was resolved by s
imply using compact and repair.
The database was created originally under PAradox, then migrated to ACCESS 9
7 and then to 2000. I suspect that this is the root of the problem, coupled
with the fact that we are using 2000 as front end and that there was no mai
ntenance.|||"cc" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5293B9C9-9C65-4406-9659-954DF6BD5227@.microsoft.com...
> We experienced data corruption once since my arrival, but no maintenance
was performed on the databases >at all for a few years. We were plagued
with network slowdows at the time of the incident. Maintenance was
>performed on the server (among other things that were found is 16%
fragmentation). The contractor that >created the database invoice a day
of work. I understand the problem was resolved by simply using compact >and
repair.
> The database was created originally under PAradox, then migrated to ACCESS
97 and then to 2000. I >suspect that this is the root of the problem,
coupled with the fact that we are using 2000 as front end and that >there
was no maintenance.
Network problems will almost always cause database corruption in Access.
If your network problems are solved, your corruption problems may be solved
too.
David