Capacity Issue

[denyoung]

I asked this question a couple of days ago on the TS thread but no one has
responded. Anyone here have any experience with Access/TS?

"I'm hoping to handle 12 mostly light-duty Access 2007 users (a single 25
table database) and two Word 2007 users on a 2007 Terminal Server with an
Intel
Quad Core Xeon E5335 2.0GHz 1333 with 4 Gigs of RAM over a cable based VPN.
Nothing else will be running on the Terminal Server.

Is this reasonable or am I off base here?"


Thanks.

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

No problem at all. I've run up to 18 users on a Dual Core 2.8 GHz Xeon, but
did a stress test with 30 connections. The most important thing to remember
is to make sure that you have a separate copy of the front-end for each user
in a folder that only they can access. So you would have 14 separate
folders, 1 for each user.

 

[denyoung]

Thanks for the info and for the quick response.

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

I asked this question a couple of days ago on the TS thread but no one has
responded. Anyone here have any experience with Access/TS?

"I'm hoping to handle 12 mostly light-duty Access 2007 users (a single 25
table database) and two Word 2007 users on a 2007 Terminal Server with an
Intel
Quad Core Xeon E5335 2.0GHz 1333 with 4 Gigs of RAM over a cable based VPN.
Nothing else will be running on the Terminal Server.

Is this reasonable or am I off base here?"

This would be severe over kill.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

 

[aaron.kempf]

I disagree.

I've had continual problems-- following best practices - with a half
dozen users and only 25 mb of data.

Anything with that many tables-- should have been moved to SQL Server
a long time ago.

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

It's not severe overkill.

They got configs like this.. because flaming dipshits reccomend
Terminal Services instead of SQL Server. Because the dipshits around
here think that getting another server with terminal services
licensing-- is cheaper than a server with a fucking database server.

Maybe if you stupid fucking morons didn't send people down the wrong
path-- then maybe they could spend their hardware and software dollars
IN THE RIGHT FUCKING PLACE.

You don't need terminal services.

HONESTLY.

To run Access 'over the internet' you don't need anything other than
MSDE and ADP.
YOU NEED SQL SERVER-- RUN ADP _OVER_ THE FUCKING VPN. That is all you
need. It runs like a charm.

This terminal shit 'just to run MS Access' is the biggest fucking con
i've ever heard of in my life.

Honestly Tony--- **** YOU AND YOUR HONKEY BULLSHIT FOR CONNING PEOPLE
INTO TERMINAL SERVICES LICENSING

-Aaron

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

I didn't see the number of tables mentioned anywhere.

On a Terminal Server the limiting factor is the number of full screen
repaints being requested. The app that I mentioned had 18 users on the
Terminal Server and another 35 on the LAN, 2 different groups connecting to
1 database which resided on a file server for a total of 53 concurrent
users. A dozen of the users had 2 or 3 database front-ends open. There was
approximately 115 MB of data being served.

Not 1 corruption in 4 (soon to be 5) years, The last corruption was in late
April 2003 when a bad Dell air card kept dropping connections. All problems
can be traced to 1 of 3 things:

1. Flaky network
2. Flaky user(s)
3. Poor design
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access
http://www.accessmvp.com

I disagree.

I've had continual problems-- following best practices - with a half
dozen users and only 25 mb of data.

Anything with that many tables-- should have been moved to SQL Server
a long time ago.

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

bullshit dog

if your database can't react to changing needs, changing users.. and a
single air card-- then you need to grow up and learn SQL Server.

Only a fucking retard would still be using Access for a database.

Access is a great product. As a frontend to SQL Server.
But as a database, it sucks.

It does not include scheduling capabilities. Access does not really
support indexing.
Access doesn't support stored procedures.

Only a fucking loser would be using Access as a database.

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

a single 25
table database

you didn't see the table count mentioned?

Maybe you should learn how to READ!

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

A terminal server costs what. 5 grand?

A terminal server _LICENSE_ costs what.. $200?

NOW WHERE THE **** DO YOU GET OFF TELLING PEOPLE THAT A TERMINAL
SERVICES SOLUTION IS BETTER THAN ADP?

I will not stand for your utter fucking bullshit any longer kids.
Terminal sessions are not required for shit.

If your stupid fucking database-- doesn't work over VPN. Then move to
ADP.

FUCKING DUH!!!!

Stop spreading lies --

-Aaron