Connecting two back end Databases

[Thorson]

I currently have a database that is being used by a handful of users. The
database Back End is located on the Network while the front end is on the
users' individual computers. The problem is that a couple of the users are
connected to the Network through a VPN, which results in the database running
very slowly. Is there anyway to put a copy of the front end and back end on
the user's computer and then when they click a button or automatically at a
certain time of day the Back end on their computer will sync with the back
end on the network by adding any new files the other back end has to each
one? I don't know if this is possible or how complicated it would be, but we
need to speed up the process somehow.

Thanks,

 

[Dale_Fye via AccessMonster.com]

Have you looked into replication?

Another method would be to use Terminal Server to put a front end accessable
to your VPN users on one of the servers. Check out this thread (
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/access-formscoding/30751/Using-Terminal-with-access
) and the hyperlink Albert has on his response

HTH
Dale

 

[Thorson]

I haven't heard of either of those, I am new to this. I will look into both
those options. If you also know of any good sites about replication that
would be great. Thank you so much!

 

[Thorson]

After reading the link you put in we are already set up on a Terminal Server,
the problem is that one user's connection to the nextwork/server is really
slow (due to internet speeds etc.) and there is no way for him to get a
faster connection. Also the database is already split.

 

[Jack Leach]

Replication is a rather advanced subject, AFIAK. Search some boards for an
MVP named David Fenton... this subject seems to be his specialty and I've
read enough posts from him to believe that he may know more about replication
than anyone else. His website links to a Jet Replication Wiki with all sorts
of information regarding the subject. In any case, using replication
properly seems to be a very intricate task.

http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/Replication/index.php?title=Main_Page


--
Jack Leach
www.tristatemachine.com

"I haven''t failed, I''ve found ten thousand ways that don''t work."
-Thomas Edison (1847-1931)

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

After reading the link you put in we are already set up on a Terminal Server,
the problem is that one user's connection to the nextwork/server is really
slow (due to internet speeds etc.) and there is no way for him to get a
faster connection.

I've used Terminal Server via 28.8 dialup at motels and such. While
it was sluggish it did work. And TS is optimized for slow speeds.
Hmm, maybe there are some TS client settings that are set for high
speed access rather than slow speed access. Check the Experiences
tab on the RDP software settings and ensure they've got the
appropriate speed checked off.

Where is his copy of the front end located? On his local PC or via
the network somewhere?

Tony

 

[Thorson]

I recently switched to ACCESS 2007 earlier this year. I was talking with a
co-worker about the possibility of Jet Replication and he suggested instead
to go internet based. I know in ACCESS 2003 the Administrator/designer could
create DAP, which from my understanding are web-based. I have never worked
with DAP, I only had a brief training on them. Is this web-based or a
similar thing available in ACCESS 2007? How well does it work?

Thanks

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

I recently switched to ACCESS 2007 earlier this year. I was talking with a
co-worker about the possibility of Jet Replication and he suggested instead
to go internet based. I know in ACCESS 2003 the Administrator/designer could
create DAP, which from my understanding are web-based. I have never worked
with DAP, I only had a brief training on them. Is this web-based or a
similar thing available in ACCESS 2007? How well does it work?

DAPs have long been deprecated. I'd suggest looking for alternatives.

Now can you get your coworker to be a bit more specific about getting
Internet based? There are all kinds of methods out there but very
few involve using Access and will take lots of time and money.

Tony

 

[Thorson]

My coworker suggested DAP to possibly speed up record entry into the
database, however my coworker knows even less about ACCESS than I do, and as
we now know DAP is no longer available in Access 2007l.

We don't want to spend a lot of time or money. I think Replication is
probably the best solution for us. I am researching and reading up on
replication, but as someone said it appears to be a complicated process. We
may decide to hire someone to help us out or design that part.

 

[Dale_Fye via AccessMonster.com]

Another option might be to use SharePoint lists, if you have access to MOSS
2007.

I've got an Access application which is using SharePoint lists as the data
source. There are some cumbersome workarounds, because SharePoint lists are
not truly relational, and do not support referential integrity, but the
database works and allows anyone with the application to connect to the data
store and enter data and generate reports.

I only mention this as a last option because the other options provided
better control. One of the nice things about Access 2007 and Sharepoint is
that you can take the data offline, and then resynchronize it. Very similar
to replication, but not as difficult to manage. Once you take the data off
line, it works as if the tables were on your local PC, then when you are done,
you can resynch to SharePoint to post your changes back to the lists.

HTH
Dale

My coworker suggested DAP to possibly speed up record entry into the
database, however my coworker knows even less about ACCESS than I do, and as
we now know DAP is no longer available in Access 2007l.

We don't want to spend a lot of time or money. I think Replication is
probably the best solution for us. I am researching and reading up on
replication, but as someone said it appears to be a complicated process. We
may decide to hire someone to help us out or design that part.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]

Tony

 

[JimBurke via AccessMonster.com]

Is there a reason why each user needs a separate copy of the front end? It
sounds like they're all using the same back end. If your back end is already
on a terminal server, it seems like you could just put the front end on the
server and have them log on to the server and run the appl there. It seems to
me that your main performance problem results from havng to send data over
the network. By running on the server this wouldn't be a problem. This might
require some work for setting up IDs and permissions on the server, etc., but
other than that it seems like it would be the best way to go. Maybe there's
an issue with your appl that I'm not aware of. We use terminal server and we
have the users log on to the server and run the appl there. It makes for very
easy distibution of new versions and there are no performance problems,
though our users have fairly fast connections.

 

[Dale_Fye via AccessMonster.com]

Bad idea Jim.

It is NEVER a good idea to have multiple users using the same front end! Now,
if you mean give each user a copy of the front end on the server, and use
Terminal Server, then I'm in agreement.

Dale

Is there a reason why each user needs a separate copy of the front end? It
sounds like they're all using the same back end. If your back end is already
on a terminal server, it seems like you could just put the front end on the
server and have them log on to the server and run the appl there. It seems to
me that your main performance problem results from havng to send data over
the network. By running on the server this wouldn't be a problem. This might
require some work for setting up IDs and permissions on the server, etc., but
other than that it seems like it would be the best way to go. Maybe there's
an issue with your appl that I'm not aware of. We use terminal server and we
have the users log on to the server and run the appl there. It makes for very
easy distibution of new versions and there are no performance problems,
though our users have fairly fast connections.

I currently have a database that is being used by a handful of users. The
database Back End is located on the Network while the front end is on the

[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]

Thanks,

 

[JimBurke via AccessMonster.com]

Why is this a bad idea? Just curious. Guess I'm showing my ignorance of how
Access works - sorry for the bad advice! It seems that any app running on a
server can potentially have many users.

Bad idea Jim.

It is NEVER a good idea to have multiple users using the same front end! Now,
if you mean give each user a copy of the front end on the server, and use
Terminal Server, then I'm in agreement.

Dale

Is there a reason why each user needs a separate copy of the front end? It
sounds like they're all using the same back end. If your back end is already

[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]

 

[Dale_Fye via AccessMonster.com]

The problem is with corruption of the application. When multiple users are
accessing the same front end, it is far more likely to get corrupted. Here
is a link to a question which will provide a bit more info. If that doesn't
do it, try searching for "shared front end"

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/comp.databases.ms-access/msg13042.html

Dale

Why is this a bad idea? Just curious. Guess I'm showing my ignorance of how
Access works - sorry for the bad advice! It seems that any app running on a
server can potentially have many users.

Bad idea Jim.

[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]

 

[RD]

<shudder>
I am in the unfortunate position of supporting a bunch (about a dozen)
of Access97 databases created by the infamous "Bad Contractor".

She built all of her applications as unsplit and just put shortcuts on
all the user's workstation desktops. Over time I've been able to
split the ones with the heaviest user load into FE/BE.

I have a couple of ... "problem children" who never respond when I
announce a new version of the front end, so I can put it on their
computers, and insist on using the front end located on the network.
Because of the environment around here, I am unable to change this.
So, predictably (almost like clockwork), I have to repair corrupted
Access applications. In fact, I had to do it just yesterday. One of
the users *willfully* (though maybe not maliciously) bypassed my
hand-rolled security. Heh ... then proceeded to delete my security
measures and fuxored the application.

I love Access. It's my "go-to" tool for much of what I do but, if
it's not set up properly (check this out:
http://www.mvps.org/access/tencommandments.htm)
you WILL regret it.

My tuppence 'orth,
RD

Why is this a bad idea? Just curious. Guess I'm showing my ignorance of how
Access works - sorry for the bad advice! It seems that any app running on a
server can potentially have many users.

Bad idea Jim.

It is NEVER a good idea to have multiple users using the same front end! Now,
if you mean give each user a copy of the front end on the server, and use
Terminal Server, then I'm in agreement.

Dale

Is there a reason why each user needs a separate copy of the front end? It
sounds like they're all using the same back end. If your back end is already

[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]

Thanks,

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

Another option might be to use SharePoint lists, if you have access to MOSS
2007.

Now there's an idea if your data isn't overly complex and doesn't
require relational integrity.

I think Albert Kallal has stated that you can use Microsoft Office
Live sharepoint site for free. But I sure could be mistaken.

Tony

 

[JimBurke via AccessMonster.com]

Your link didn't show up. I did that search and found many threads, read thru
several. Only one looked like it was related to a corruption problem, and
that was related to an MDW file. I have been running this way for about three
years with several customers. Each customer has their own directory with the
FE and BE in it. Each one has anywhere from 1 to 5 or 6 users logged in every
day, typically using the same small subset of forms and reports. Haven't had
any problems, but I guess maybe I've just been lucky to this point. Guess
I'll have to consider changing the way I'm doing this.

The problem is with corruption of the application. When multiple users are
accessing the same front end, it is far more likely to get corrupted. Here
is a link to a question which will provide a bit more info. If that doesn't
do it, try searching for "shared front end"

Dale

Why is this a bad idea? Just curious. Guess I'm showing my ignorance of how
Access works - sorry for the bad advice! It seems that any app running on a

[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]

 

[Dale Fye]

This is the hyperlink I tried to pass:

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/comp.databases.ms-access/msg13042.html

you can expand the search to include "Albert" and "Kallal". Albert has
responded to numerous questions on news groups regarding shared front ends.

----
HTH
Dale

Your link didn't show up. I did that search and found many threads, read thru
several. Only one looked like it was related to a corruption problem, and
that was related to an MDW file. I have been running this way for about three
years with several customers. Each customer has their own directory with the
FE and BE in it. Each one has anywhere from 1 to 5 or 6 users logged in every
day, typically using the same small subset of forms and reports. Haven't had
any problems, but I guess maybe I've just been lucky to this point. Guess
I'll have to consider changing the way I'm doing this.

The problem is with corruption of the application. When multiple users are
accessing the same front end, it is far more likely to get corrupted. Here
is a link to a question which will provide a bit more info. If that doesn't
do it, try searching for "shared front end"

Dale

Why is this a bad idea? Just curious. Guess I'm showing my ignorance of how
Access works - sorry for the bad advice! It seems that any app running on a

[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]

Thanks,

 

[JimBurke via AccessMonster.com]

For some reason that link is not appearing for me. I just see a blank line.
Maybe another vista bug? (Just went to a new laptop with vista recently -
don't get me started!

This is the hyperlink I tried to pass:

you can expand the search to include "Albert" and "Kallal". Albert has
responded to numerous questions on news groups regarding shared front ends.

----
HTH
Dale

Your link didn't show up. I did that search and found many threads, read thru
several. Only one looked like it was related to a corruption problem, and

[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]

 

[Dale Fye]

did you try limiting the earlier search by including "Kallal" in the search
string?

It may have something to do with AccessMonster. My original post was via
that interface as well, and the hyperlink didn't show up in that either.
When I posted from the microsoft.com/office/community/... it seemed to post
OK.

Can you see the hyperlink if you go to:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...n-us&mid=d73c480b-5cce-42f8-8f1f-d90aa0d09aff

----
HTH
Dale

For some reason that link is not appearing for me. I just see a blank line.
Maybe another vista bug? (Just went to a new laptop with vista recently -
don't get me started!

This is the hyperlink I tried to pass:

you can expand the search to include "Albert" and "Kallal". Albert has
responded to numerous questions on news groups regarding shared front ends.

----
HTH
Dale

Your link didn't show up. I did that search and found many threads, read thru
several. Only one looked like it was related to a corruption problem, and

[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]

Thanks,